Insert Discussion Regarding Women in Authority Here

[Charlotte 'Mercer' Burton]

I have noticed several threads going off track to discuss the biblical precedent (or lack thereof) for the Nazarene position of allowing women to have positions of authority in the church. I thought it might be fitting is we moved all those discussions to one convenient location so that the other threads could go back to their original topics.

Allow me to begin: If "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28) Then why, in several other places in the New Testament - even in Paul's own letters - does he give separate rules for slaves and masters or for men and women? Should I believe him in this passage, that their is no distinction, or in the other passages, that one group should act in this way and the other in that way?

[David Gerber]

A Woman's Place? Leadership in the Church (http://www.ccel.us/place.toc.html) by CS Cowles might be a good place to start.
NT Wright's article Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm) is good, also.

Women and the Call of God (http://www.crivoice.org/WT-call.html) by Barbara Moulton is her discussion of how she can read the same verses others use to keep women from ministry leadership and come to a different conclusion.

More to come later. Hope these links help.

[Hans Deventer]

Allow me to begin: If "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28) Then why, in several other places in the New Testament - even in Paul's own letters - does he give separate rules for slaves and masters or for men and women? Should I believe him in this passage, that their is no distinction, or in the other passages, that one group should act in this way and the other in that way?

You should believe Gal 3:28 to be the principle, and others the outworking in specific situations.

[Todd Erickson]

In Rome, both slaves and women were property. Much like children.

Slaves were actually, in specific roles, more likely than women to be allowed to steward property, to have a voice in specific matters, whereas women almost never were, unless they were acting in the role of a priestess of one of the local temples, such as Diana.

While Jewish men were well educated in the bible, with all knowing the first five books of the bible by heart, and many knowing the entire OT by heart (including books we don't consider canon) and all of the commentary on them. Women knew none of this.

Women, knowing they were equal in God, began to interrupt services and ask questions that the men already knew. Paul told his congregations to have the women ask at home, one-on-one with their husbands, so that every gathering wasn't spent rediscussing things.

Women, having a voice, were given to listening to things which might not have been the best source. A false prophetess is addressed at one point, but not in terms of her willingly misleading people, but instead that she's not understanding for herself that her manner and source are not correct, and she is compared to Eve.

Women were told not to cut their hair short, so that they didn't take on the appearances of the priestesses of Diana in the area. There isn't anything inherently wrong with having short hair, there was just a wariness of not appearing like another religion.

Most of the men were from cultures where women had no voice, and got terrifically offended if women tried to teach them, despite the fact that in many locations, the early Christian leaders were women. This because a huge stumbling issue, though it wasn't the women's fault, it was the men's.

There are those who, like the patriarchs of old, will grasp at any element that gives them the right to not have to learn from women, to listen to them, despite the fact that God often speaks very clearly through them. They use those verses to bind women, and to keep themselves from having to grow, from having to submit, from having to sacrifice. But then, to them, God is only a man.

[Kazimiera Fraley]

For me you don't begin with Paul or even the OT you begin with the resurrection and those whom God chose to be the first to preach the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, no matter which gospel you read it was either A women, Mary, or a handful of women, Mary and company, who were given the good news and entrusted to go back and share that message with all the others. God gave women the right to preach the gospel, and all other verses which are "pro" or "con" women in ministry must be interpreted through that lens.

[David Troxler]

A Woman's Place? Leadership in the Church (http://www.ccel.us/place.toc.html) by CS Cowles might be a good place to start.
NT Wright's article Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm) is good, also.

Women and the Call of God (http://www.crivoice.org/WT-call.html) by Barbara Moulton is her discussion of how she can read the same verses others use to keep women from ministry leadership and come to a different conclusion.

More to come later. Hope these links help.

I miss Barbara's regular participation on NazNet.

Also, we could have used NT Wright's work a few weeks ago on the thread about Junia being a female apostle. He is clear on her gender and apostleship.

Thanks for the links.

[David Pettigrew]

The "man of Macedonia" who appeared to Paul in a dream turned out to be a woman - Lydia - who became the pastor of the first church there.

[Susan Unger]

The "man of Macedonia" who appeared to Paul in a dream turned out to be a woman - Lydia - who became the pastor of the first church there.Hadn't heard this before. I was told that people suspected it was Luke.

[Sarah Smith]

I'm glad to see the discussion ongoing on this topic. Going on vacation meant missing it, but I continued to study the issue while I was gone.

I've come to some personal conclusions while I was camping and will try to share them, but bear in mind they are just that, and your mileage may vary. If so, feel free to educate me further!

If you subscribe to the literal interpretation view of the scriptures, you can find those that proscribe ordaining women. Of course,those same passages would also proscribe ordaining many of the men now serving in churches. (Like those with rebellious teenage kids!)

If you subscribe to the historical/critical method, you can find plenty of verses that make the ordination of women no different than the ordination of men.

Personally, I do not believe the Bible puts the pastor in "authority" but rather in a place of "servant status", so see no problem ordaining women. (Although I do not believe those that see it differently are trying to oppress women.)

More to the point, I believe our whole ordination system is wacky. We have a tendancy to set education requirements, expect testimony of a "call", and a with a reasonably good reputation we will accept the person for ordination.

I don't believe holiness people should be doing that.

I believe instead of the "office" or "career" of pastor, we should just be looking for folks that fit the role or slot of a specific job. Someone gifted in compassionate ministry might be the church hospital visitor. Gifted teachers teach. Gifted preachers preach.

So who would be qualified to preach? I believe that should be someone with a clear crisis experience of salvation, a clear crisis experience of sanctification, and a walk that matches those.

In short, someone with a heart so radically and revolutionarily changed and cleansed the world can see.

That might be an uneducated housewife or trucker. It might be a ph.d. in quantum physics. It might be the local baker, or lawyer, or farmer, or teacher. It might be someone trained for professional ministry.

But it always should be someone the Lord has clearly ordained.

And if I read my Bible correctly, it will probably be the last person we would expect.

[Jim Chabot]

Of course,those same passages would also proscribe ordaining many of the men now serving in churches. (Like those with rebellious teenage kids!)


Linda, I realize that this is out of the context that you have set, I am not responding to you here, but rather to this statement.

Yes, yes and yes.......... Pastor's with rebellious children or spouses should most certainly be leaving service, perhaps for a sabbatical to get their family life in order, or perhaps for good. It seems that whenever this situation occurs, many will point that it is not the Pastor's fault, I don't think that it matters whose fault it is, whenever you have someone in ministry of any kind who values their ministry over their family, I believe that person is wholly unfit to serve, either by literal interpretation or just by common sense.

[Jim Chabot]

I miss Barbara's regular participation on NazNet.

Also, we could have used NT Wright's work a few weeks ago on the thread about Junia being a female apostle. He is clear on her gender and apostleship.

Thanks for the links.

I miss Barbara as well.

It is nice to see that NT Wright got half of it right.:tongue:

[Ian Gentles]

Well in my old mission did say, a woman at top would understand famalies, felt it a good point

[Sarah Smith]

Jim--not out of context at all!

You grasped exactly what I believe scripture teaches. It doesn't matter our gender, or our "credentials", but our relationship with Christ evidenced by our lives that make us qualified for ordination.

And surely, family is our first ministry priority, ordained or not.

[Kazimiera Fraley]

Jim - am I understanding you right that if a pastor's teenage daughter decides to rebel against the church and against her family. That pastor should quit the ministry put added stress on the family as s/he tries to find another way in which to support the family? And that not doing so would be putting ministry over family? I guess I don't follow. If my daughter rebelled, I am not sure there would need to be a choice between putting my family first and serving the church. Family is always first but quitting my ministry would not necessarily be putting my family first. Or at least I don't see how it would necessarily be a requirement as a way of putting my family first.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim - am I understanding you right that if a pastor's teenage daughter decides to rebel against the church and against her family. That pastor should quit the ministry put added stress on the family as s/he tries to find another way in which to support the family? And that not doing so would be putting ministry over family? I guess I don't follow. If my daughter rebelled, I am not sure there would need to be a choice between putting my family first and serving the church. Family is always first but quitting my ministry would not necessarily be putting my family first. Or at least I don't see how it would necessarily be a requirement as a way of putting my family first.

I think that you are understanding in part, however what I am saying may be worse. I think that it would be best for a minister to realize in such a situation the best course of action is to step down voluntarily. However I believe that the church should remove a minister in this situation. If those who are the closest to a person in ministry reject the message, does this not speak to the validity of that persons calling?

Scripture teaches this. Do we not trust the one who has called us to be faithful during our service? I honestly believe that should one be called of God to minister, their family will be solidly behind them, and I also believe that without solid family support, the call is not valid.

I believe that the same is true in the case of divorce. It's over, time to seek work in a secular setting. God is able to protect those whom he wishes to serve in ministry. I fully trust him to show us in this public manner who is called and who is not.

I don't see where there would be added stress on the family, unless this is resisted. I have worked through this a couple of times in the secular workplace, when my business consumed me to a point where my family was in possible jeopardy. I have changed careers, I sold a business and took a job for a while. I did these things to put my family first. God has rewarded me through this by providing opportunities greater than those I gave up.

[John Kennedy]

I think that you are understanding in part, however what I am saying may be worse. I think that it would be best for a minister to realize in such a situation the best course of action is to step down voluntarily. However I believe that the church should remove a minister in this situation. If those who are the closest to a person in ministry reject the message, does this not speak to the validity of that persons calling?

Scripture teaches this. Do we not trust the one who has called us to be faithful during our service? I honestly believe that should one be called of God to minister, their family will be solidly behind them, and I also believe that without solid family support, the call is not valid.

I believe that the same is true in the case of divorce. It's over, time to seek work in a secular setting. God is able to protect those whom he wishes to serve in ministry. I fully trust him to show us in this public manner who is called and who is not.

I don't see where there would be added stress on the family, unless this is resisted. I have worked through this a couple of times in the secular workplace, when my business consumed me to a point where my family was in possible jeopardy. I have changed careers, I sold a business and took a job for a while. I did these things to put my family first. God has rewarded me through this by providing opportunities greater than those I gave up.

I have some real problems with this whole point of view. I have known several strong, highly effective ministers whose children have chosen to go their own way. It was a heartbreaking thing for the parent. To add to that heartbreak by forfeiting one's ministry is simply too much. It was the child's decision - not the minister's. People, including those we have carefully nurtured, have the power of choice.
The really bizarre statement is the one about God showing us in this way who is called and who is not. God had certainly blessed the ministry of someone and then when the kid decides to go south, he revokes the call. You've gotta' be kidding.

[Charlotte 'Mercer' Burton]

I think that you are understanding in part, however what I am saying may be worse. I think that it would be best for a minister to realize in such a situation the best course of action is to step down voluntarily. However I believe that the church should remove a minister in this situation. If those who are the closest to a person in ministry reject the message, does this not speak to the validity of that persons calling?

Scripture teaches this. Do we not trust the one who has called us to be faithful during our service? I honestly believe that should one be called of God to minister, their family will be solidly behind them, and I also believe that without solid family support, the call is not valid.

I believe that the same is true in the case of divorce. It's over, time to seek work in a secular setting. God is able to protect those whom he wishes to serve in ministry. I fully trust him to show us in this public manner who is called and who is not.

I don't see where there would be added stress on the family, unless this is resisted. I have worked through this a couple of times in the secular workplace, when my business consumed me to a point where my family was in possible jeopardy. I have changed careers, I sold a business and took a job for a while. I did these things to put my family first. God has rewarded me through this by providing opportunities greater than those I gave up.

I disagree. I firmly believe that my dad's work with NewStart - both in Texas and our move to Australia to help there - were the result of God's call. I believe this both because of the incredible results that I saw in the lives of those he ministered to, and because I know that God dealt with my mother on a very personal level in order to bring her on board and show her that my dad's ministry was truly God's idea and not just another idealistic whim. I have seen God work through my dad to bring dozens of people closer to Himself, including my own family.

Nevertheless, while in high school and early in college, my two brothers and I have all rebelled and broken rules that we knew full well our church held to be important. I cannot speak for my brothers, but I know that I did this independently of my father's ministry or his call. While I was breaking these rules, I still held them to be true, valid, and vital. When I rebelled, I did not intend to rebel against my dad or his teachings. I did not intend to rebel against God or his teachings. Even as I fought my own conscience, I still held God to be God and love to be the most important thing I could ever do. I never questioned either of those things either in my actions or my thoughts. I never questioned that my Daddy loved me, either the one on Earth or in Heaven. My misdeeds and rule-breaking were not a matter of mistrust or invalid calling. It was a matter of my personal decision to ignore what I knew to be logically and theologically right. It was me choosing temporal pleasure over eternal happiness. It was a matter of me testing if I could seek power and give love at the same time and finding the answer to be "no." It was a matter of my stubbornness overruling the wisdom of all my elders and loved ones.

I understand where you're coming from, I think. I understand questioning how, if a father cannot control his own daughter and convince her to act rightly in God's eyes, could he ever do the same for a congregation? If his ministry is not effective in keeping his own family holy, how could he ever hope to show holiness to those who haven't seen it? I understand and agree with your statement that "God is able to protect those whom me wishes to serve in ministry." I believe He did. That's why my dad was able to continue ministering without any real income for so long. That's why my brothers and I were able to spend our formative years surrounded by the message that God is God, and that God is love, and that love is enough, and seeing this message acted out all around us too. God was with our family in a powerful way through my father's ministry, and He is still impacting us and many others through what we learned during that ministry.

In summary, I think what I'm trying to say is that, at least in my own case, my sins occurred independently of my father's influence. I have said before and will say again that I cannot think of anything my parents or anyone else could have said or done that would have kept me from doing the things I did. I will add to that sentiment the statement that I do not believe that, had my father quit ministering when Wesley and I rebelled, it would have changed our lives or our family dynamic in any positive way.

[Wayne Paul]

Jim,

Were you raised in a parsonage? I was. I strongly disagree with you on this one. I was a normal teenager who often showed signs of rebellion. The thing the frustrated me most was church members. and others in the community, expectations and judgments on of every thing I did.

When a person is called by God into the ministry does not mean the spouse and not yet borne children share the the call. If I as a preachers kid rebels against my parents or the church members expectations, how does that imply the pastor's ministry is ineffective. Do you really believe the behavior of a pastor's family is a barometer of a pastor's Godliness, or his ministry?

I know of many wonderful, effective pastors who's hearts were broken by their children's rebellion. The pain they suffered vastly increased their effectiveness when dealing with members of their church suffering similar pain.

The pastor, the spouse and their children all have free will. The poor decisions of a family member are not controlled by, or a product of pastor's ministry.

The result of what you express would give a strong willed child the ability to drive their pastor parent out of the ministry at any point in adolescence they became unhappy with parsonage life. Who knows, if this was in effect when I was a child, I may have driven my father out of ministry when he took a church and I didn't want to move. This really give children too much power and control over their parent's life.

I know I am rambling; however, the attitudes you just expressed are the source of much real psychological pain I suffered as a child. I could go on and on typing; however, most of the examples are too personal, and/or painful to share. All that needs to be said, is that unrealistic expectation are harmful the a pastor's ministry and the spiritual/psychological wellbeing of the pastor's family.

Respectfully,

Wayne

[Hans Deventer]

Jim, according to your reasoning, God should abdicate as well, because His children make a total mess of it. I'll be interested to hear your plea before the throne.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, according to your reasoning, God should abdicate as well, because His children make a total mess of it. I'll be interested to hear your plea before the throne.

No I don't think that you understand my reasoning here. This is not my reasoning, rather it is my agreement with God's reasoning, it is a reflection of my trust in him. I do not need to fully understand the why's, before I place my trust. He has indicated that this is a condition of his ordination, who are we to question?

He is the one who elevates his ministers family to the level of ordination committee, do we not trust him to keep those whom he has chosen? Do we actually believe that the church through it's ordination committee and it's established organizational structure is in a better position to discern than God himself who has set the criteria?

To answer Wayne, no I was not raised in a parsonage, I have spent almost the entirety of my Christian experience "backstage". I have had the opportunity to meet and interact with many ministers outside of the public setting. Some have been genuine, the real deal, what a blessing to work with someone who's heart is truly after God. I am not going to comment on the negative side of my experience, but I certainly do know from whence I speak, I have witnesses the accuracy of God's criteria in action.

I don't believe that any should seek ministry as a career, we should serve at God's pleasure. He decides if it is a career or not, no one has the right to ministry, and no one has the right or should have the need to keep their calling "private" when God has set forth public methods by which others may determine the validity of the call.

Should we not follow his reasoning, rather than our own?

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

[Hans Deventer]

This is not my reasoning, rather it is my agreement with God's reasoning, it is a reflection of my trust in him. I do not need to fully understand the why's, before I place my trust. He has indicated that this is a condition of his ordination, who are we to question?

This is dangerous because it is so close to the truth and yet misses it. We should indeed trust God, but with the same reasoning we must stone those disobedient children. After all, He gave the law and who are we to question? Go ahead, throw the first stone!

But you don't do that. You disobey many commands, because you interpret them differently. You can't hide behind your not understanding when it comes to issues like these.

There is a lot I do not understand and I still trust God's love. But I am not going to punish people or throw them out of the ministry because my lack of understanding. That is a very, very dangerous attitude.

[Mike Fraley]

If those who are the closest to a person in ministry reject the message, does this not speak to the validity of that persons calling?


Jesus was betrayed by one of the 12. Perhaps that speaks ill of his calling. :)

[Jim Chabot]

This is dangerous because it is so close to the truth and yet misses it. We should indeed trust God, but with the same reasoning we must stone those disobedient children. After all, He gave the law and who are we to question? Go ahead, throw the first stone!

But you don't do that. You disobey many commands, because you interpret them differently. You can't hide behind your not understanding when it comes to issues like these.

There is a lot I do not understand and I still trust God's love. But I am not going to punish people or throw them out of the ministry because my lack of understanding. That is a very, very dangerous attitude.

The dangerous attitude is the one that regards ministry as a right rather than a privilege. Ministers should remove themselves, a servants heart would require it of them.

I think that we have touched upon the subject of God's love in the past. I would suggest that following his instruction is trusting in his love, even when it does not fit the definition that we have given it. His ways are not our ways. I think that the word punishment mischaracterizes what is at issue here. This is only my opinion, but I believe that those who would view this as a punishment are not fit for ministry, I believe that he calls servants.

[Sarah Smith]

I think in a round about way this thread drift hits to the heart of the matter.

God's Word is very clear here: no new believers should be ordained, no one who cannot successfully lead their own little household should be in leadership in God's house, no brawlers or drunks....well, you get the idea.

Now we worry about hurting someone's career path over obeying God.

NO ONE--male, female, married, single, parent, with or without certain training, NO ONE has a right to a "job" as a pastor.

It IS a call to servanthood. It is all about leading. And if the leader refuses to follow God's clear instructions, reasoning that he or she knows better and that obeying God is cruel or unfair, they prove by that they ARE unfit to serve.

Maybe we will see a radical revival if we insist pastors must serve bivo or on a volunteer basis like SS teachers.

That way they could preach the truth without worrying about paying the mortgage, and the congregation could insist on following God's Word without hurting his or her career path.

[Hans Deventer]

I think in a round about way this thread drift hits to the heart of the matter.

God's Word is very clear here: no new believers should be ordained, no one who cannot successfully lead their own little household should be in leadership in God's house, no brawlers or drunks....well, you get the idea.

Now we worry about hurting someone's career path over obeying God.

NO. Definitely NO. We worry about throwing a good and called servant of God out the ministry merely because he has a child that doesn't listen, for which he is NOT to blame. And there are way too many instances where good parents are faced with a child they cannot handle. I think it is devilish to blame that on them and besides having to deal with this child, also add more anxiety and misery to this family.

If the letter to Titus says anything, it is not to APPOINT elders who have these problems at home. Which of course makes sense because you're in way too much trouble already.
However, when you have been appointed and later on the problem occurs to no fault of yours, the situation is quite different and Ezekiel 18 applies.

[Ryan Scott]

I'll just chime in to say that perhaps declaring a pastor's child's "rebellion" (I'm not even sure how we're defining that term) as cause or as indeterminate for a pastor's qualification is troubling.

Obviously, sometimes when a pastor's child messes up their life, it can be traced to parents making poor decisions. I have seen pastors who put ministry over family directly effect their children. (Although, more often than not those kids become super-committed to church stuff as a way of earning the attention and love they've lost to the church.)

At the same time, there are plenty of pastors who do put family first and still have kids who abandon the faith. What do we do about pastors kids who spend a couple year trying to figure out what they believe and ultimately choose Christ? Do we give the pastor a leave of absence while their daughter makes her choice?

I think the way we do things now could be improved. I'm not sure how much support and oversight we have for ordained ministers when it comes to family priorities, personal physical and psychological health, etc. Perhaps we need such accountability as we try to have for those seeking ordination. In any event, we can't just simply make unflinching rules and enforce them with no relationship. Every situation is unique and we need to treat them that way.

[Jim Chabot]

NO. Definitely NO. We worry about throwing a good and called servant of God out the ministry merely because he has a child that doesn't listen, for which he is NOT to blame. And there are way too many instances where good parents are faced with a child they cannot handle. I think it is devilish to blame that on them and besides having to deal with this child, also add more anxiety and misery to this family.

If the letter to Titus says anything, it is not to APPOINT elders who have these problems at home. Which of course makes sense because you're in way too much trouble already.
However, when you have been appointed and later on the problem occurs to no fault of yours, the situation is quite different and Ezekiel 18 applies.

No one who does not meet the qualification set forth is called, no one. Should God set standards and then call those who do not meet them? No of course not he is a God of order and not confusion. Blame is not relevant here, not at all. If God calls them he will also keep them.

We cannot possibly determine fault in these situations, we will always have insufficient information. Only God knows the heart and only he knows the entirety of the situation, he has indicated that their are certain disqualifies. How can we possibly know if someone is truly called of God if we choose to disregard his criteria provided to us?

Ezekiel 18 most certainly applies to everyone, it has no bearing here though. Blame or condemnation isn't in play here. The only issue is qualification that's all. It's not that big of a deal, if you can't run your family, then you aren't suited to give advice to anyone else, it's just common sense, move on find a job, that's all.

[Hans Deventer]

It's not that big of a deal, if you can't run your family, then you aren't suited to give advice to anyone else, it's just common sense, move on find a job, that's all.

Blurp............. Running for a bag for I feel my stomach turning.

And it remembers me why I never ever want to fall into the hands of Christians.

[Jim Chabot]

I think in a round about way this thread drift hits to the heart of the matter.

God's Word is very clear here: no new believers should be ordained, no one who cannot successfully lead their own little household should be in leadership in God's house, no brawlers or drunks....well, you get the idea.

Now we worry about hurting someone's career path over obeying God.

NO ONE--male, female, married, single, parent, with or without certain training, NO ONE has a right to a "job" as a pastor.

It IS a call to servanthood. It is all about leading. And if the leader refuses to follow God's clear instructions, reasoning that he or she knows better and that obeying God is cruel or unfair, they prove by that they ARE unfit to serve.

Maybe we will see a radical revival if we insist pastors must serve bivo or on a volunteer basis like SS teachers.

That way they could preach the truth without worrying about paying the mortgage, and the congregation could insist on following God's Word without hurting his or her career path.

I don't think that pay is the issue here, I believe that we should pay Pastor's well enough so that they can devote their energy and passion toward their calling. I believe that the Old Testament example combined with the appointing of Deacons in Acts, both point to adequate compensation.

I also have had the pleasure to meet a few Independent Baptist Pastor's who serve with no pay, they serve for the sheer pleasure of being in charge.

[Jim Chabot]

Blurp............. Running for a bag for I feel my stomach turning.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Jim. It is not too late to apologize.

I will of course apologize if I have upset you, and apparently I have. I am sorry, for that was not my intention.

I do believe that God's calling to ministry is not to be taken lightly. I have seen far too much abuse in this area, and I will say that I believe that most of it could have been prevented by simply following his instruction.

[Todd Erickson]

Armchair quarterbacks, unite!

[Ryan Scott]

It's not that big of a deal, if you can't run your family, then you aren't suited to give advice to anyone else, it's just common sense, move on find a job, that's all.

Of course, we're all family. We're all brothers and sisters in Christ. There shouldn't be any separation between our immediate family and our congregation, as laypersons or as clergy. Should the pastor and board resign if anyone in the congregation rebels or leaves the faith?

[Hans Deventer]

I will of course apologize if I have upset you, and apparently I have. I am sorry, for that was not my intention.

I do believe that God's calling to ministry is not to be taken lightly. I have seen far too much abuse in this area, and I will say that I believe that most of it could have been prevented by simply following his instruction.

I have never ever suggested a call should be taken lightly. Show me where I did and I'll repent.

[Jim Chabot]

Of course, we're all family. We're all brothers and sisters in Christ. There shouldn't be any separation between our immediate family and our congregation, as laypersons or as clergy. Should the pastor and board resign if anyone in the congregation rebels or leaves the faith?

Honestly, I think that the instructions given in 1 Timothy 3 are clear enough to preclude the scenario you suggest.

[Jim Chabot]

I have never ever suggested a call should be taken lightly. Show me where I did and I'll repent.

I did not mean to imply that you do take it lightly, I have never doubted your sincerity. I do believe that perhaps we are using different starting point to validate someones "call". I choose to trust God's qualifiers as the basis for my discernment. I do not believe that we as humans have any other trustworthy basis for this.

I also wonder if we are coming at this possibly from opposite directions. I can sense your strong concern for someone possibly removed unjustly from ministry, and I can appreciate that thought. My concern is for the congregation, I see ministry as a privilege, I don't see any hardship in someone denied public ministry because they cannot, or no longer meet God's criteria. There is no opportunity lost for we are all ministers.

[Ryan Scott]

Honestly, I think that the instructions given in 1 Timothy 3 are clear enough to preclude the scenario you suggest.

I guess, if we're going to appeal to that, we're being awfully subject about what "managing his household well" means.

[James Diggs]

Linda, I realize that this is out of the context that you have set, I am not responding to you here, but rather to this statement.

Yes, yes and yes.......... Pastor's with rebellious children or spouses should most certainly be leaving service, perhaps for a sabbatical to get their family life in order, or perhaps for good. It seems that whenever this situation occurs, many will point that it is not the Pastor's fault, I don't think that it matters whose fault it is, whenever you have someone in ministry of any kind who values their ministry over their family, I believe that person is wholly unfit to serve, either by literal interpretation or just by common sense.

This statement makes lots of assumptions. 1. It assumes that if one "manages his family well" then spouse and kids can't have issues of their own. 2. It assumes that such trouble is a result of putting ministry over family and that giving up the ministry is what will fix the problem.

Yes, how one engages with those in their family is a biblical criteria for leadership. The criteria though is meant to beg the question of if you are living out the life of a disciple at home with those closest to you and know you best. Certainly we want people who can do this in leadership as they are to walk with and encourage others to do the same. However, just like all of us, sometimes we have to live out our faith in difficult and messy circumstances that we don't have much control over. I don't think these realities disqualify people from leadership, but rather I would be interested in how they handled and "managed" these realities regardless of the results. I can easily envision affirming one person's leadership in how he or she loves and manages the reality of a "rebellious" child, over another who keep their kids in line, but do it through manipulation or intimidation.

So then I put the emphasis on the part of the passage that says "He must manage his own family well" and understand the second part as a resulting generalization that is often true but not always. It may signal as a red flag to always looked into, but I can imagine that in certain situations it could be found that despite the problem the leader is managing those things well and loves his or her family with the kind of Christian example that we all should despite the response of others.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I have some real problems with this whole point of view. I have known several strong, highly effective ministers whose children have chosen to go their own way. It was a heartbreaking thing for the parent. To add to that heartbreak by forfeiting one's ministry is simply too much. It was the child's decision - not the minister's. People, including those we have carefully nurtured, have the power of choice.
The really bizarre statement is the one about God showing us in this way who is called and who is not. God had certainly blessed the ministry of someone and then when the kid decides to go south, he revokes the call. You've gotta' be kidding.

I think I must agree here with John. We are all free to choose and since God created us with this freedom He does not hold the actions of a child against the parent:

20The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own. Ezek. 18:20).

In light of this, IF the pastor with the rebellious teenager can give her attention to both the congregation and her family as she had prior to the rebellion then she should stay. If by stepping down she can give more attention to the family and help the rebellious child, or if the home situation hurts the church, then by all means step down. But to punish the parent for the choices of the, when Paul wrote an adult, child just seems wrong and God Himself won't hold that against the parent, who are we to do so?

[Paul DeBaufer]

Maybe we will see a radical revival if we insist pastors must serve bivo or on a volunteer basis like SS teachers.

That way they could preach the truth without worrying about paying the mortgage, and the congregation could insist on following God's Word without hurting his or her career path.

I think I understand your point, but Paul interprets Jesus commands found in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7 in 1Corinthians 9 as, 13Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed on the altar? 14In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. Therefore I think our pastors should be paid. But like Paul earlier in this passage IF the church cannot afford to pay s/he should find another way of support so as not to burden the church.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think that I might think that I might have a difficult time getting hard and fast rules about how to do church from the Pauline and pseudo-Pauline writings. Because as I read through Paul's letters he sometimes says, "This is a command from the Lord," (I paraphrase slightly). Other times he informs us that what he is saying is his personal opinion. While most often these letters do not clarify one way or the other. Of course my even considering thinking this belies my view of Scripture--I am not a literalist and I hold to a degree of human interaction in the writing down of God's inspiration.

[Tami Martin]

I had to look outside for a minute to make sure there were no cataclysmic events going on for surely the day Jim and I agree, it must be Judgment Day!

In all seriousness...if I read through these passages and try to put myself in Timothy's shoes, I feel like I would be hearing my mentor telling me that I should be very careful in who I chose to lead the fledgling church. I should choose carefully those who will anchor the church and make sure that what gets handed on to the next generation is the same message as the one handed to us. I would need to be careful to chose people who have proved by their lives that they can do this job. The last part, not a new convert, is added I think because the rest of those things already suggest a person at the end of their life. Someone who has proven that he (or she, just "he" in the passage because of the culture in question) is capable in all the areas that need capability.

I have a hard time with church leadership being young people who have not so proven themselves. I don't think that this means that the kids were perfect, but that the potential elder/bishop lived what he preached and continues to do so even with children (and I think that culturally, one could still be considered "children" at quite an advanced age relative to the age of the patriarch) who have chosen to go a different way.

I think in relation to what has been discussed here, that this means an elder whose children are living for the Lord or, if they are not, the elder in question has dealt with them in the most Christ-like manner. Plenty of pastors in this country have their wives and children in complete lock-step...because if they're not, they'll be beaten within an inch of their lives.

[John Kennedy]

I'm sitting here thinking about the prophet Hosea whose wife commited adultrey. According to the 'if you can't tame your household get your butt out' school of thought, Hosea, obviously had an invalid prophet's license. Apparently God was asleep at the switch on this one and the book should be removed from the canon forthwith.

[Mike Fraley]

What I find most fascinating about this subject is that we began talking about women in ministry, and the further along we got in posts the more prominently "his family" or "his ministry" were used in reference to the pastoral family. I think it speaks volumes on the way we accustomed to thinking about ministry.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'm sitting here thinking about the prophet Hosea whose wife commited adultrey. According to the 'if you can't tame your household get your butt out' school of thought, Hosea, obviously had an invalid prophet's license. Apparently God was asleep at the switch on this one and the book should be removed from the canon forthwith.

Interesting how God commanded Hosea to marry Gomer, who repeatedly committed adultery to the point Hosea had to buy her back from her pimp. And we get the impression his kids were going to be out of control as well.

[Shea Zellweger]

No one who does not meet the qualification set forth is called, no one. Should God set standards and then call those who do not meet them? No of course not he is a God of order and not confusion. Blame is not relevant here, not at all. If God calls them he will also keep them.
I'ma toss something out here:
This is not a debate over this Scripture, it is a debate over Open Theism. I think we can all agree that a person who can't even deal with the problems in his/her own household should not be ordained a minister. We might disagree over the specifics- hopefully we agree that the children will disobey from time to time as all children do, and the idea of having one's house in order refers more to how a parent deals with ordinary disobedience, and whether children are extraordinarily disobedient. I would suggest that a child who gets everything he wants is worse off than the one who snuck some cigarettes home one time, but that's really neither here nor there. Long story short, however you see a minister having their own house in order, that should be the case when he/she is licensed, ordained, etc.
Once we get beyond that, we move into open vs. closed. An open theist would say that this has to be the case at ordination, but it's possible that things could change later on, and the call is not somehow negated. A closed/classical theist would rather say that the requirement is ongoing, and if at any point a child becomes rebellious or a spouse becomes unfaithful, the minister's whole call is negated. So this argument is more based on underlying assumptions about the nature of God than on the Scripture itself.

Now, when it comes to having one's own house in order, let me put something out there in addition. The requirements which Paul lays out are not just requirements, they are protections. A minister shouldn't be a new convert- why? Because that minister might become prideful, so let's just protect him/her from the risk of pride as much as we can (it still happens, even with non-novices). Likewise, a minister first having his/her own house in order is for the sake of the minister- if I can't handle my family and my church, then it's the church that goes, not the family. If I have to choose between putting in an extra 30 hours a week at the church, or devoting myself to maintaining family relationships, and the 30 extra hours would hurt those relationships, I don't work those 30 hours. By putting "my own house" first, I have my priorities set in the way God would have them. As I told my congregation in Alabama several times, a good pastor will not sacrifice his/her family on the altar of ministry. Within reason, he/she should be oriented family first. This also establishes a model for the other men and women in the church who are away from the home more often than they should be. There are so many great reasons for this rule to be in place, and IMHO the very least of them is the creation of a litmus test for the minister's ongoing employment (for lack of a better word, Linda :P )

[Ryan Plott]

I would need to be careful to chose people who have proved by their lives that they can do this job. The last part, not a new convert, is added I think because the rest of those things already suggest a person at the end of their life. Someone who has proven that he (or she, just "he" in the passage because of the culture in question) is capable in all the areas that need capability.

I have a hard time with church leadership being young people who have not so proven themselves. I don't think that this means that the kids were perfect, but that the potential elder/bishop lived what he preached and continues to do so even with children (and I think that culturally, one could still be considered "children" at quite an advanced age relative to the age of the patriarch) who have chosen to go a different way.

My counter-point as a young person would be, if you never give me the chance, you'll never know if I'm capable or not. I understand the concern but you gotta take a risk sometime. Once the current generation of pastors died off, you'd have no one left. Also, there are plenty of recommendations in Scripture for those about to go into the ministry to be single since they would have more time to dedicate to ministry.

[Ryan Plott]

I'm sitting here thinking about the prophet Hosea whose wife commited adultrey. According to the 'if you can't tame your household get your butt out' school of thought, Hosea, obviously had an invalid prophet's license. Apparently God was asleep at the switch on this one and the book should be removed from the canon forthwith.

Right on John. It's not what the people around us do that qualifies or disqualifies us for ministry. It's God's call on the individual's life and the church's recognition of that call.

[Shea Zellweger]

I have a hard time with church leadership being young people who have not so proven themselves. I don't think that this means that the kids were perfect, but that the potential elder/bishop lived what he preached and continues to do so even with children (and I think that culturally, one could still be considered "children" at quite an advanced age relative to the age of the patriarch) who have chosen to go a different way.


There is a HUUUGE difference between "Not a novice/new convert" and "not a young person." Timothy was probably not even 30 when he was appointed as a pastor, and was encouraged not to let others look down on his youth. Youth is not the problem- a 25 year old pastor who has spent the last 20 years in the church, 5-10 of those in preparation for ministry, I see no problem with him/her being a pastor. On the other hand, the 60 year old who comes to the Church for the first time, feels called of God, has a local license within 6 months and is ordained 4 years later, might not really be up to the tast. Sure, he/she has plenty of life experience, but that's actually a bad thing when that life experience is outside of a biblical setting, and can often lead to poorly thought-out or even anti-Christian training within that pastor's local church.

[Ryan Plott]

Once we get beyond that, we move into open vs. closed. An open theist would say that this has to be the case at ordination, but it's possible that things could change later on, and the call is not somehow negated. A closed/classical theist would rather say that the requirement is ongoing, and if at any point a child becomes rebellious or a spouse becomes unfaithful, the minister's whole call is negated. So this argument is more based on underlying assumptions about the nature of God than on the Scripture itself.

Help me process this Shea. You've got me thinking, but I don't know if I'm quite following you.

Wouldn't a classical theist say the call would remain also because God is omniscient and omnipotent? I thought the whole idea was that God was sovereign over humanity's actions.

[Shea Zellweger]

Help me process this Shea. You've got me thinking, but I don't know if I'm quite following you.

Wouldn't a classical theist say the call would remain also because God is omniscient and omnipotent? I thought the whole idea was that God was sovereign over humanity's actions.

The classical theist would say that not only does God know that the pastor's children are not rebellious now, but also that they will not be in the future. Sovereignty is a slightly different discussion, and is more in regard to the Augustinian/Arminian debate. The Open/Closed(Classical) discussion is essentially whether or not God knows absolutely what will or will not happen. If God does know definitively what will happen, then God must only call people whose families will be in order for the course of their ministry.

[John Kennedy]

I had to look outside for a minute to make sure there were no cataclysmic events going on for surely the day Jim and I agree, it must be Judgment Day!

In all seriousness...if I read through these passages and try to put myself in Timothy's shoes, I feel like I would be hearing my mentor telling me that I should be very careful in who I chose to lead the fledgling church. I should choose carefully those who will anchor the church and make sure that what gets handed on to the next generation is the same message as the one handed to us. I would need to be careful to chose people who have proved by their lives that they can do this job. The last part, not a new convert, is added I think because the rest of those things already suggest a person at the end of their life. Someone who has proven that he (or she, just "he" in the passage because of the culture in question) is capable in all the areas that need capability.

I have a hard time with church leadership being young people who have not so proven themselves. I don't think that this means that the kids were perfect, but that the potential elder/bishop lived what he preached and continues to do so even with children (and I think that culturally, one could still be considered "children" at quite an advanced age relative to the age of the patriarch) who have chosen to go a different way.

I think in relation to what has been discussed here, that this means an elder whose children are living for the Lord or, if they are not, the elder in question has dealt with them in the most Christ-like manner. Plenty of pastors in this country have their wives and children in complete lock-step...because if they're not, they'll be beaten within an inch of their lives.

I was especially intrigued by your last paragraph. It reminded me of an anecdote shared by my minister. He has mentioned several times in sermons about how his wife, now deceased, would, if she seriously disagreed with some point in one of his sermons, stand up and challenge him on the issue.

He told how, in another pastorate, a woman began attending who had been subject to spousal abuse, both verbal and physical. She told the pastor, after his wife had challenged him on a point, that when she returned to church the next Sunday, she expected the pastor's wife to have been beaten up and was surprised to find this was not the case.

[Hans Deventer]

I did not mean to imply that you do take it lightly, I have never doubted your sincerity. I do believe that perhaps we are using different starting point to validate someones "call". I choose to trust God's qualifiers as the basis for my discernment. I do not believe that we as humans have any other trustworthy basis for this.

I'm sorry, Jim, this is not enough. YOU are interpreting those qualifiers, and I believe mistakenly. So statements as "I choose to trust God's qualifiers as the basis for my discernment" are not sufficient. You need to give account for your interpretation, especially if such an interpretation has such strong repercussions on the pastoral family.

And it seems to me those qualifiers actually say something different. You have conveniently placed your quote out of context, so there's the first problem. Let's put the context back in.



5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.


The context is beyond the shadow of a doubt that of appointing elders by Titus. Paul gives him the framework for that appointment. Nothing here is being said about what should happen when such a person has been appointed and later on, issues emerge. It is easy to imagine a whole lot of actions that could be taken. Matthew 18 comes to mind. And if discipline is necessary, even that can take many shapes and forms. The cold hearted "just leave the ministry" is so utterly graceless and unchristian that I can't even believe a follower of Jesus would say that for starters. I can of course imagine that a pastor has got into such deep problems that this could be the outcome, but when it is something that is no fault of his/her own, that seems to be out of the question.


I also wonder if we are coming at this possibly from opposite directions. I can sense your strong concern for someone possibly removed unjustly from ministry, and I can appreciate that thought. My concern is for the congregation, I see ministry as a privilege, I don't see any hardship in someone denied public ministry because they cannot, or no longer meet God's criteria. There is no opportunity lost for we are all ministers.

This I cannot understand either. I didn't know our income depended on the church? The truth of course is that there is no equation if one depends for his income in the church, and another does not. Sure, we are all called to be ministers, but we are not all paid by the church. The ramifications for the latter are a little more serious than for the rest of us, and I cannot imagine you could honestly deny that. And that's just the financial side of it.

Of course ministry is a privilege. That's not the point. The point is how we deal with a good pastor, who has been serving the church well for quite some time, has been ordained, has proven him/herself to be a minister of God and then is faced with a child that does not behave. Usually, it's only one. It's not rare at all to see a family with 2 or 3 very decent children, and one who completely rebels.

Enters Mr. Chabot. Well, pastor, the word of the Lord is clear: get out of the ministry! You now have a "wild and disobedient child" so there you go!

And by the way, God's law is even more clear:



Deut 21:18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Of course we'll go to jail for doing that, but we are to obey God more than people, aren't we, even if we do not understand His word? I presume you'll follow this word from the Lord as well.

And the worst of all is that more often than not, pastor's children rebel because of the ridiculous expectations placed upon them, not by their parents, but by the church! The very church that will throw them and their parents out if they indeed do rebel! Jim, I'm smelling hypocrisy here a mile away. Can you see why this makes my stomach turn? And that's an understatement! I've seen way too many good pastors and family treated badly by their church. It ain't gonna happen if I can help it.

[Tami Martin]

I think there's some sound reason why there are age limits on offices such as the presidency...there's no reason to assume that the only place of leadership is the senior pastorate. So...once your grandparents die off...there's no one between them an you? Forget your parent's generation?

[Tami Martin]

There is a HUUUGE difference between "Not a novice/new convert" and "not a young person." Timothy was probably not even 30 when he was appointed as a pastor, and was encouraged not to let others look down on his youth. Youth is not the problem- a 25 year old pastor who has spent the last 20 years in the church, 5-10 of those in preparation for ministry, I see no problem with him/her being a pastor. On the other hand, the 60 year old who comes to the Church for the first time, feels called of God, has a local license within 6 months and is ordained 4 years later, might not really be up to the tast. Sure, he/she has plenty of life experience, but that's actually a bad thing when that life experience is outside of a biblical setting, and can often lead to poorly thought-out or even anti-Christian training within that pastor's local church.

There's a strong chance Shea that I did not communicate myself well. I'm not suggesting that the preaching office should be limited to old men or women but I am suggesting that when we fill the leadership of our churches with young people, we are - as Failblog says - not doing it right.

[Jim Chabot]

Yes I think that we are miles apart on this one Han's, I can see some of your points as valid, however I don't see any of them as substantive. I can see your point regarding the mistreatment of Pastor's and I wholeheartedly agree. My own Pastor has been horribly mistreated by our congregation in the years following the death of his father, I have stood steadfast beside him doing anything and everything that I can to help him. I wholeheartedly join you in the sentiment that "It ain't gonna happen if I can help it" and in fact that is exactly where I am today, right now and in real time! I'll gladly provide you with my Pastor's phone number if you wish.

But that isn't the issue, rather the issue is those Pastor's who are not, or who were not fit for ministry. I think that you are missing this very important distinction. You claim context where we can see that this is instruction for Titus, while this is not context rather it is setting, it is an historical aside. If this passage speaks only to this, it becomes rather useless, I can't ascribe to this, I do see it as part of that slippery slope that will surely lead to everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. I agree that the text is silent regarding events subsequent to appointment or ordination, I would maintain that these are qualifications. Therefore a variant from them should not result in disciplinary action, rather it is an indicator that this person is not suited, a person with integrity would leave voluntarily. Removal may be seen outwardly as disciplinary, but that is not the case, an unfit person should not be disciplined, yet they cannot stay they must go.

You bring income into the discussion, and if I understand you correctly you are alluding the ones investment in ministry as well. I do not see how these things can be factored into this sort of thing. Yes we must have compassion, I agree. I believe that it would be entirely appropriate for the church to assist in this transition, however income and investment cannot and should not enter into the discussion regarding qualification. I have myself undergone this process. I was employed for a year as a High School teacher, it was a dream job 180, six hour work days per year, plenty of time off. You could say that it was like a walk in the park. However I was not suited for this job, I could't take it seriously, it didn't engage me. There was also an educational requirement where I had been granted a three year grace period due to my past experience. I knew full well that I wasn't going to expend the effort to fulfill that requirement. I was effective, I still maintain contact with a few of my students from back than, they tell me that that year made a difference in their career paths. However it would come to pass that I would become unqualified because of the education requirement. I chose to leave voluntarily, I needed the income at the time, yet I knew that I was not suited for this and in the end integrity must trump income. I left voluntarily.

You speak of a good pastor who has served long and well, then we have problems where he is no longer qualified. (we have not defined exactly what would cause family problems to rise to this level.) I will maintain that you are in error, you have been deceived by this person. I do not believe that this person was called of God to ministry. The evidence presented requires this. There is no possible way that you could know better than this persons family, you are reaching beyond what you can know. I'm sure that you are aware that all things are not determined by direct observation. Many things in the realm of science are determined by the observation of consequences or effects rather than directly. For instance we observe that a far away planet wobbles slightly on it's axis, from this we can determine that it must possess a moon, even though we cannot see it. I would maintain that this is that sort of situation, where the observable effects prove what we cannot see.

And then we get to the obligatory obfuscation presented by the stoning of children texts. Have you actually read the verse that you presented? There is no command contained in it requiring you or I to stone a child. You mention that we would go to jail for it, that is simply not true. The passage you selected indicated that all the men of the town should participate in this stoning. The passage indicates that a civil law should exist requiring this. This is similar to the other references given in this thread where we compare God with a minister, we then compare Jesus with a minister and his disciples are compared to family, Hosea the prophet is compared to a minister. Where will all of this end? How does one maintain a conversation among those who refuse to discuss an issue based upon it's merits?

[Jim Chabot]

There is a HUUUGE difference between "Not a novice/new convert" and "not a young person." Timothy was probably not even 30 when he was appointed as a pastor, and was encouraged not to let others look down on his youth. Youth is not the problem- a 25 year old pastor who has spent the last 20 years in the church, 5-10 of those in preparation for ministry, I see no problem with him/her being a pastor. On the other hand, the 60 year old who comes to the Church for the first time, feels called of God, has a local license within 6 months and is ordained 4 years later, might not really be up to the tast. Sure, he/she has plenty of life experience, but that's actually a bad thing when that life experience is outside of a biblical setting, and can often lead to poorly thought-out or even anti-Christian training within that pastor's local church.

Oh Timothy was more than likely past the age of thirty. One did not take any position of religious authority before that age, not even Jesus did so. We will be way off track if we head down this rabbit trail and I don't intend to. I have had a long standing objection to the ordination of people under the age of thirty. Nothing personal, I have held this position for many years.

[Jim Chabot]

Right on John. It's not what the people around us do that qualifies or disqualifies us for ministry. It's God's call on the individual's life and the church's recognition of that call.

Yes, however the church has nothing on which to recognize ones "call" outside of scripture. When the church writes their own rules, they should not be surprised when the laity will not follow along. And lets remember in our tradition the local church board has the power to remove, every four years. I believe that the local church board should consider these scriptural qualifications each time it votes to retain or dismiss.

[Hans Deventer]

Yes I think that we are miles apart on this one Hans

Well at least that is a point of agreement.


I can see some of your points as valid, however I don't see any of them as substantive

Agreed as well, the other way around of course.

If this passage speaks only to this, it becomes rather useless, I can't ascribe to this, I do see it as part of that slippery slope that will surely lead to everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.

So, if we read the text in it's context, we're on a slippery slope. That idea might indeed lead us to the root of the issue. Is one faithful to the Bible when you read a 1st century text in a 21st century context without any translation? Rhetorical question to me.


You speak of a good pastor who has served long and well, then we have problems where he is no longer qualified. (we have not defined exactly what would cause family problems to rise to this level.) I will maintain that you are in error, you have been deceived by this person. I do not believe that this person was called of God to ministry. The evidence presented requires this.

Jim, this is Calvinistic reasoning. It is exactly in line with, "If you have said goodbye to the faith, you were never saved in the first place". It's the old "once saved, always saved" reasoning, that is wrong and definitely not Wesleyan nor Nazarene.

I think what we are left with is a very different way of reading the Scriptures and a Calvinistic approach in stead of a Wesleyan. We're not going to agree anytime soon, it seems to me, so we reached the end of the discussion.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I guess, if we're going to appeal to that, we're being awfully subject about what "managing his household well" means.

First, we might observe the context of 1 Timothy 3:4-5


3:4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way-- 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church?

It is quite clear from 3:2 that these qualifications are for a bishop (Gk: episkopos), an overseer, not a minister or pastor of a local congregation. Further, to generalize this passage to talk about a call to ministry is a misuse of Scripture, especially since biblically it is God who calls people to service not the Church by imposing a set of criteria (which is why I have always opposed "gifts" surveys as a screening tool for ministers). In any case, to try to project this comment across 2,000 years of history and culture to make it a legal requirement for today in a radically different context and after 2,000 years of Church history pushes the limits of what Scripture can do, and thus lacks credibility.

Note that in this same chapter, "managing their household" is also the responsibility of "deacons" (3:12), as well as "young windows" (5:14) and "older women" (Titus 2:5). Also since "household" is used of the church (for example, 1 Tim 3:15, Eph 2:19, 1 Pet 4:17), at the very least this suggests a much more wide-ranging meaning for "household" than "immediate family."

Further, the same cultural problems exist with the idea of keeping children "submissive." Recall the same word is used to tell slaves to be submissive to their masters (Tit 2:9) and wives to be submissive to their husbands (Tit 2:5). Do we really want to return to a 2,000 year old social structure and legally demand that kind of submission based on Scripture? Or do we want to understand what Scripture is saying within that cultural context and find ways to work out the principles operating in these passages in order to apply them within a radically different social structure?

Second, it is interesting to me that so many want to define this in terms of control, how a father "manages" his children (and presumably wife). Yet, the Greek word translated "manage" has connotations of "lead" not control by power or force (actually translated "leader" in Rom 12:8). In this sense it carries the connotation of "take responsibility for" much more than "have control over."

In far too many cases I have seen over the years (and some not that long ago), a minister father was an overbearing tyrant who thought that "managing well" meant controlling everything that wife and children did. I could tell lots of stories, enough to know that such cases are not just aberrations.

Yet I hear hints of that in the suggestion that a parent is directly responsible for children's actions. While both parents certainly have the responsibility of spiritual leadership, we ought to be Wesleyan enough to admit that children also make their own decisions. And in far too many cases I have seen, they make those decisions in direct reaction against overbearing parental "management."

Maybe in our context "managing their household well" means being a good loving father (or mother) who loves the spouse, loves the children, and takes responsibility for their welfare, including modeling for them what it means to be a loving sanctified child of God, without being dictatorial.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Interesting how God commanded Hosea to marry Gomer, who repeatedly committed adultery to the point Hosea had to buy her back from her pimp. And we get the impression his kids were going to be out of control as well.

This places much too modern a context onto the story. Since the book is a scathing attack against Ba'al worship in Israel, it is likely that Gomer was a temple prostitute engaged in the worship of Baal, a fertility god (personifying rain) that the people thought could be influenced by imitative magic (it doesn't take too much imagination to make the connection).

While it is easy for us to latch onto the moral issue of adultery, that in itself was not the issue in Hosea. The primary issue was the worship of Baal. Gomer and her relationship to Hosea becomes a clear symbol of Israel and her covenantal relationship to God. The whole thrust of the book is that just as Hosea could forgive and welcome back Gomer after prostituting herself in the worship of Baal, so God would welcome Israel back after dabbling in Baal worship (Hos 11). That message becomes clear in the reversal of the names of the three children.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Charlotte 'Mercer' Burton]

Jim, I would like to thank you personally for your input. I appreciate the opportunity to try to understand a position different from my own and be able to discuss it in a Christian manner. I have noticed, however, that Shea's comment regarding open/closed theism has been largely passed over, and I thought he had an interesting point. I would like to hear your response to that. Is this conversation, indeed, a comparison of open and closed theism in one particular practical application, or are we on the same page as far as open/closed theism and discussing something else? If this is a discussion on the validity of open versus closed theism, might I suggest we move it to a thread on that topic?

[Ryan Plott]

I think there's some sound reason why there are age limits on offices such as the presidency...there's no reason to assume that the only place of leadership is the senior pastorate. So...once your grandparents die off...there's no one between them an you? Forget your parent's generation?

I'm assuming this is directed toward's my response to you.

There's a good reason for the president to have an age limit. That reason would be, it's one of the requirements of the Constitution of the United States of America. Can you find a passage in the Bible that limits the pastorate to a certain age?

I really don't understand the grandparents or parents generation comment. Could you explain further?

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, I would like to thank you personally for your input. I appreciate the opportunity to try to understand a position different from my own and be able to discuss it in a Christian manner. I have noticed, however, that Shea's comment regarding open/closed theism has been largely passed over, and I thought he had an interesting point. I would like to hear your response to that. Is this conversation, indeed, a comparison of open and closed theism in one particular practical application, or are we on the same page as far as open/closed theism and discussing something else? If this is a discussion on the validity of open versus closed theism, might I suggest we move it to a thread on that topic?

My thoughts were indeed thrust into action by the reading of Shea's post. I have some questions in my mind that I would like to ask in order to gain a better understanding of where he is coming from. Sadly I haven't had much time this week as I don't get back home from camp until close to midnight, that plus working has taken a bite out of my free time. I am hoping that we can discuss it though, as I am still working through exactly what open theism is or is not.

[Jim Chabot]

Dennis, thanks so much for your post regarding "managing ones household well" for although I disagree with your idea of what a "bishop" is, I found the rest to be extremely helpful and articulate.

The overbearing, dominant Pastor's that you have described are exactly the ones that I would like to see ousted from ministry. These are the ones who have their family completely in abusive submission, until one of them gains enough courage to oppose the tyrannical head of household and they make a break for it or openly rebel. We need good and loving Pastor's, the rest need not apply! (rant over)

[Ryan Plott]

Yes, however the church has nothing on which to recognize ones "call" outside of scripture.

We have Scripture, that is true. I do not think we have nothing else to stand on though. We also have a church tradition spanning 2000 years that we can draw from to discern whether an individual is called or not. We have reason, which tells us to look for certain things in the life of the candidate that will let us know whether they are trying to become a pastor for the right reasons. We also have the experience of the individual's testimony and the testimony of the denomination as to whether this person is fit for leadership or not.

The church's role is not to be a dispenser of grace, only God has that call. Their role functions similarly to that of a midwife inspecting a human baby in order to determine which gender it is. The church inspects said individual in order to find out whether God has really called them to be a member of the clergy. The church is making a covenant with these candidates, not purely running down a checklist. The first focuses on what a person is willing to give, the second focuses on what a person does not have. I think the first option falls much more in line with how the church has approached the problem of discerning its leaders rather than the second.


When the church writes their own rules, they should not be surprised when the laity will not follow along. And lets remember in our tradition the local church board has the power to remove, every four years. I believe that the local church board should consider these scriptural qualifications each time it votes to retain or dismiss.

My comment to John was regarding what qualifies an individual for service. My intention was not to speak to a local board voting every four years to retain their pastor.(It is pastor right? I couldn't tell whether you were saying the rules were removed every four years or the pastor but pastor seemed more likely) That process does inspect the call but also includes past performance such as leadership, management, relational connections with the congregation, and spiritual guidance. I was not trying to speak a prescriptive word to that process.

[Tami Martin]

My counter-point as a young person would be, if you never give me the chance, you'll never know if I'm capable or not. I understand the concern but you gotta take a risk sometime. Once the current generation of pastors died off, you'd have no one left. Also, there are plenty of recommendations in Scripture for those about to go into the ministry to be single since they would have more time to dedicate to ministry.

Sorry Hank. Yes, my comment was directed at this one of yours.

My thought ran this way: there is no reason to think that you must start at the top to show us what you're capable of. You seemed to suggest that after the current generation of pastors dies off - assuming they are in relation to a "young person" of grandparent age - there's no one to take their place. It sounds like you are forgetting that generation who are no longer "young" and have already proven themselves in the "smaller things."

[Ryan Plott]

Sorry Hank. Yes, my comment was directed at this one of yours.

My thought ran this way: there is no reason to think that you must start at the top to show us what you're capable of. You seemed to suggest that after the current generation of pastors dies off - assuming they are in relation to a "young person" of grandparent age - there's no one to take their place. It sounds like you are forgetting that generation who are no longer "young" and have already proven themselves in the "smaller things."

Ok, gotcha.

I wouldn't consider being a pastor of a local church as starting on top. For me that would be more along the lines of running for a GS position of the church. I would consider a youth/children/or congregational pastor as equally important to the senior pastor. From what I read in your post, I was assuming you were speaking of pastoring in general. Perhaps you meant something different and were referring to only senior pastors. Either way, I disagree. A young person can be a great senior pastor.

I also never said anything about parents and people of grandparent age dying off or missing a generation. If I gave that impression I am sorry, it was not my intention. A better word choice on my part would probably have been "current group of pastors" rather than "current generation of pastors" What I'm saying is, if you never give a young person, by this you seem to be saying inexperienced/unqualified pastoral candidate, a chance then once those generations that already do have experience and are pastoring die off you would have no one to replace them with. This would be forced by your own logic and criteria that requires someone to prove themselves experientially and thereby qualify for the pastorate. This was an outgrowth of my assumption that you were speaking of pastoring in general. If you are speaking of senior pastors only and not youth/children/congregational pastors then my assumption was wrong, but I still disagree as I believe young people can be great senior pastors.

[Kazimiera Fraley]

Hank I agree with you. This is even more OT than we are but, hey since we have spun this far why not keep spinning. I think we do a dis-service to the associate pastor positions when we make the following assumptions
1. An associate pastor position is "less than" a senior pastor position
2. An associate pastor position is a stepping stone to a senior pastor position
3. People with less experience should be associates prior to being senior pastors because that is a good place to gain experience

What all of these forget is that all pastoral positions are filled by people are equally called and important positions in the church body.
We also forget that many people who hold these positions do not feel called to the "senior" pastorate at all.
We also forget that many times these positions are just as challenging or even more challenging than holding a senior pastor position.
We also forget that being able to be an associate pastor doe not mean you will be able to be or be good at being a senior/solo pastor.
Just my two cents

[Craig Laughlin]

Hmmm. I seem to be attracted to the the part of threads that are off point. - Don't know what that means???

Okay to my off point, point. There is very little danger of to many young people in leadership in the Church of the Nazarene. My understanding is that the trend is the other way with median age of pastor's being on a steady incline. I would guess this trend also applies to board members and probably churches in general. (Well at least in the US) I suspect the far great danger to the church is a statistical collapse as the builder generation and then the Boomers passes away. My understanding is that there is a significant drop in church attendance from Builders to Boomers and an even stronger decline in the following generations. I think the real danger is not to much young leadership but rather a deep hole of young church attenders. I fear that my generation's epitaph will be that we were so ineffective at reaching the younger generations that we turned the US into Europe. Lots of nice empty buildings.

[Shea Zellweger]

Oh Timothy was more than likely past the age of thirty. One did not take any position of religious authority before that age, not even Jesus did so.
Except that the average person was expected to live somewhere on the order of 28 years. There were Rabbis younger than 30 at the time, but they were generally looked down on because they were young. 30 was a very traditional Rabbinical age, as at that point you really could be considered an elder of the people- relatively speaking, of course. If we were to follow the same logic, ordination wouldn't come until a person were in their mid to late 70s, as at that point they would more than likely be older than most other people. Given that the average life expectancy has more than doubled in that time, a 25-30 year old Timothy isn't really comparable to a 25-30 year old American person, but given the reference to Timothy's youth and the average life expectancy, it is hard to imagine that he would have been in his 30s. There are some sources which suggest he was 40, and Paul 60, and these are actually based on Paul having been barely 20 when he was called, and are used along with conservative estimates for the writing of letters in order to assert that Paul did indeed write them, and not a later Pauline disciple. So, one could assert that Timothy was 40, but it would be based on a tradition that has Paul's call as occuring lower than the age of 30, so the argument kind of falls apart at that point.


We will be way off track if we head down this rabbit trail and I don't intend to.
Eh, it's NazNet, we get off track. We've been discussing people managing their own households for the last 3 pages. This is no more off track from the original topic (women in authority) than that rabbit trail.


I have had a long standing objection to the ordination of people under the age of thirty. Nothing personal, I have held this position for many years.

No offense taken. I disagree.

[Ryan Scott]

I have had a long standing objection to the ordination of people under the age of thirty.

I'm not in favor of a hard and fast rule, but as a guiding principle, I think it's a good one.

[Paul DeBaufer]

In any case, to try to project this comment across 2,000 years of history and culture to make it a legal requirement for today in a radically different context and after 2,000 years of Church history pushes the limits of what Scripture can do, and thus lacks credibility.


Further, the same cultural problems exist with the idea of keeping children "submissive." Recall the same word is used to tell slaves to be submissive to their masters (Tit 2:9) and wives to be submissive to their husbands (Tit 2:5). Do we really want to return to a 2,000 year old social structure and legally demand that kind of submission based on Scripture? Or do we want to understand what Scripture is saying within that cultural context and find ways to work out the principles operating in these passages in order to apply them within a radically different social structure?


Second, it is interesting to me that so many want to define this in terms of control, how a father "manages" his children (and presumably wife). Yet, the Greek word translated "manage" has connotations of "lead" not control by power or force (actually translated "leader" in Rom 12:8). In this sense it carries the connotation of "take responsibility for" much more than "have control over."

In far too many cases I have seen over the years (and some not that long ago), a minister father was an overbearing tyrant who thought that "managing well" meant controlling everything that wife and children did. I could tell lots of stories, enough to know that such cases are not just aberrations.


Maybe in our context "managing their household well" means being a good loving father (or mother) who loves the spouse, loves the children, and takes responsibility for their welfare, including modeling for them what it means to be a loving sanctified child of God, without being dictatorial.

Dennis,

Simply clicking on "thank you" for your post just didn't seem adequate enough. i especially appreciate the above quotes about the difference betwixt "Managing" and "Leading".

Paul

[Ryan Plott]

Hmmm. I seem to be attracted to the the part of threads that are off point. - Don't know what that means???

From what I've seen, it means you're a full-fledged member of Naznet.

[Greg Farra]

Hmmm. I seem to be attracted to the the part of threads that are off point. - Don't know what that means???

Okay to my off point, point. There is very little danger of to many young people in leadership in the Church of the Nazarene. My understanding is that the trend is the other way with median age of pastor's being on a steady incline. I would guess this trend also applies to board members and probably churches in general. (Well at least in the US) I suspect the far great danger to the church is a statistical collapse as the builder generation and then the Boomers passes away. My understanding is that there is a significant drop in church attendance from Builders to Boomers and an even stronger decline in the following generations. I think the real danger is not to much young leadership but rather a deep hole of young church attenders. I fear that my generation's epitaph will be that we were so ineffective at reaching the younger generations that we turned the US into Europe. Lots of nice empty buildings.

I don't know Craig. I've heard a lot of people say we should be more like Europe!

[Jim Chabot]

Except that the average person was expected to live somewhere on the order of 28 years. There were Rabbis younger than 30 at the time, but they were generally looked down on because they were young. 30 was a very traditional Rabbinical age, as at that point you really could be considered an elder of the people- relatively speaking, of course. If we were to follow the same logic, ordination wouldn't come until a person were in their mid to late 70s, as at that point they would more than likely be older than most other people. Given that the average life expectancy has more than doubled in that time, a 25-30 year old Timothy isn't really comparable to a 25-30 year old American person, but given the reference to Timothy's youth and the average life expectancy, it is hard to imagine that he would have been in his 30s. There are some sources which suggest he was 40, and Paul 60, and these are actually based on Paul having been barely 20 when he was called, and are used along with conservative estimates for the writing of letters in order to assert that Paul did indeed write them, and not a later Pauline disciple. So, one could assert that Timothy was 40, but it would be based on a tradition that has Paul's call as occuring lower than the age of 30, so the argument kind of falls apart at that point.


Eh, it's NazNet, we get off track. We've been discussing people managing their own households for the last 3 pages. This is no more off track from the original topic (women in authority) than that rabbit trail.



No offense taken. I disagree.

Just a quick note to say that the average life expectancy data must be correlated with the infant mortality rate in order to get a better picture. The raw data is also skewed on the high end when we realize that many diseases and injuries were fatal back then. I think taken as a whole, the aging process hasn't changed all that much.

[Charlotte 'Mercer' Burton]

Except that the average person was expected to live somewhere on the order of 28 years. There were Rabbis younger than 30 at the time, but they were generally looked down on because they were young. 30 was a very traditional Rabbinical age, as at that point you really could be considered an elder of the people- relatively speaking, of course. If we were to follow the same logic, ordination wouldn't come until a person were in their mid to late 70s, as at that point they would more than likely be older than most other people. Given that the average life expectancy has more than doubled in that time, a 25-30 year old Timothy isn't really comparable to a 25-30 year old American person, but given the reference to Timothy's youth and the average life expectancy, it is hard to imagine that he would have been in his 30s. There are some sources which suggest he was 40, and Paul 60, and these are actually based on Paul having been barely 20 when he was called, and are used along with conservative estimates for the writing of letters in order to assert that Paul did indeed write them, and not a later Pauline disciple. So, one could assert that Timothy was 40, but it would be based on a tradition that has Paul's call as occuring lower than the age of 30, so the argument kind of falls apart at that point.

Just a quick note to say that the average life expectancy data must be correlated with the infant mortality rate in order to get a better picture. The raw data is also skewed on the high end when we realize that many diseases and injuries were fatal back then. I think taken as a whole, the aging process hasn't changed all that much.

I'm going to confess up front that I know absolutely nothing about the average lifespan of a Roman citizen at that time (I know Paul was a citizen - was Timothy?). I do, however, know that (as Jim pointed out) average lifespan is a very tricky statistic as a result of infant mortality rate. If 50% of people die by age two, then even if the other 50% live to be 70, your average lifespan sits around 36. If we are talking about how old Timothy was, then we are no longer talking about relatively subjective points. This particular point is 100% objective. As such, I would like to see where each of you is getting your statistics on the matter, especially since the trickiness of this statistic is compounded by the difficulty of getting hard and fast, factual information about a culture that existed 2000 years ago. Could you guys give me a link to the studies you got these life expectancies from?

[Hal Paul]

I fear that my generation's epitaph will be that we were so ineffective at reaching the younger generations that we turned the US into Europe. Lots of nice empty buildings.

No, Europe's empty church buildings are much nicer than ours. Ours will probably be turned into apartments or pancake & steak restaurants...

Oh! wait...

[Wayne Paul]

No, Europe's empty church buildings are much nicer than ours. Ours will probably be turned into apartments or pancake & steak restaurants...

Oh! wait...

The rest of the story ....

The church where Pearline and I were married (http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pictures/Wayne/Cable_Paul_Wedding.htm) is now Rusty's Pancake & Steak House. The fellowship hall and SS class room section is Rusty's Lounge. The church where Hal was dedicated is now an apartment building.

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm going to confess up front that I know absolutely nothing about the average lifespan of a Roman citizen at that time (I know Paul was a citizen - was Timothy?). I do, however, know that (as Jim pointed out) average lifespan is a very tricky statistic as a result of infant mortality rate. If 50% of people die by age two, then even if the other 50% live to be 70, your average lifespan sits around 36. If we are talking about how old Timothy was, then we are no longer talking about relatively subjective points. This particular point is 100% objective. As such, I would like to see where each of you is getting your statistics on the matter, especially since the trickiness of this statistic is compounded by the difficulty of getting hard and fast, factual information about a culture that existed 2000 years ago. Could you guys give me a link to the studies you got these life expectancies from?

Here's a pretty quality link:
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html

This table is for women, which skews it a little higher than average, and one of the notes in the table is that some scholars would dispute it on the rounds that the initial life expectancy should be lower. It also gives an infant mortality rate of 319/1000, or about 32%.

Based on the table, we see that IF a person were to survive until the age of 30, they could reasonably hope to live an additional 25-30 years. About 43% of the population lived past 30, 36% lived past 35, and 29% lived past 40, just for starters.

Now, we have this table:
http://www.lifetable.de/data/MPIDR/USA_2000-2004_White.pdf

This is data for people in the US born in 2000 (at least, that's how I'm reading this site, if you've come to a different conclusion, do share). For the sake of argument, I'll use data for White Females, who are thought to be the longest living group. According to this chart, 43% of all white females today (or perhaps all white females born between 2000 and 2004...) can hope to live to about 84-85, 36% would be somewhere around 87, and 29% to about 89.

However, with such a high infant mortality rate, perhaps a better picture could be drawn by comparing only people who survive infancy, or 78% of the overall population. So that 43% living past the age of 30 becomes about 55%, 36 becomes 46, and 29 becomes 37. Returning to the US table, the 55% threshold aligns with ages 81-83, 46% with 83-85, and 37% with 86-88.

Our contemporary perception of old age is that it is found somewhere north of 60. For generosity's sake, I'll go ahead and say 80. If we perceive only people aged 80 and older as "old," then it would be logical to conclude that fully 60% of people born the same year as you could be alive, and you'd still be "old." as that's what contemporary life expectancy data indicates.

So, going by contemporary data overlayed on a Roman world, we would conclude that the age of 25 was actually the point at which one moved from being "young" to being "old." However, that would not have been common perception at the time. We know from cultural studies- or so I was taught in my undergrad work- that 30 was a traditional age for the beginning of one's public ministry as a "Rabbi," "Elder of the People," or whatever other term was being used in the given time (Rabbi was gradually popularized over the course of the first century). Given its commonplace nature, it would be a little redundant for Paul to speak specifically about Timothy's youth in the context of his call to ministry. He was the pastor/leader of the church in Ephesus, a town with a population nearing 250,000 during his lifetime. The leader of one relatively small religious faction in that city could not really be considered a higher office of the church, and is best compared in "level" to the contemporary office of senior pastor in a slightly above-average sized church. This role would be no "higher" than that of the local town Elder(s) who oversaw the affairs of the entire village. Given that Ephesus was a mostly Gentile town, accustomed to Roman culture in which many governors and other high-ranking government officials would begin their careers in their late teens and rise to prominence by or before the age of 30, there's no suggestion of "youth" from that angle either.

The final angle from which one might approach youth is relative youth, in that Timothy was certainly younger than Paul. I think it's a weak argument, since in the context of the letter it would be silly for Paul to be saying "Hey Timothy, don't let me look down on you," as there's really no reason to believe Paul would do so. However, we'll go along with that one for a minute. As I stated before, those traditions which are arguing relative youth are doing so for the sake of authentic authorship. They give the most conservative estimates of this epistle (1 Timothy) having been written circa 67 CE, and suggest that Paul would have been about 60 at this time, and Timothy about 40. This solves the Timothy problem, but puts another in its place. If Paul was 60 in 67, then he was born in about 7 CE, or nearly 10 years after Christ. Since Christ is traditionally thought to have died at the age of 33, and the call of Paul is thought to have been very early in the life of the church (within 2-3 years of Christ's death/Resurrection), those same estimates make it highly likely that Paul was only in his mid- to late-20s when he was first called of God and made an Apostle, even by Jim's standards. So we see a man in his 20s occupying the highest office of the church rather than a man in his 20s occupying a lower office, and the case for the validity of young ordination (at times- 1 out of 12 is hardly the "norm") is actually benefited rather than harmed.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm not in favor of a hard and fast rule, but as a guiding principle, I think it's a good one.

Hmm. I would avoid all risk and only ordain them post mortem.

[Craig Laughlin]

The rest of the story ....

The church where Pearline and I were married (http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pictures/Wayne/Cable_Paul_Wedding.htm) is now Rusty's Pancake & Steak House. The fellowship hall and SS class room section is Rusty's Lounge. The church where Hal was dedicated is now an apartment building.

I went back to see the church I grew up in and it had been reduced to a pile of rubble. I picked up a piece and I have it sitting on the counter in my office as a reminder that you can't go back, only forward.

On life expectancy I heard the other day that babies born today have a pretty real chance of living to be 100.

[Dana Grant]

Hmm. I would avoid all risk and only ordain them post mortem.

Just cruisin' around NazNet tonight, decided to click on the last post of this thread and see what was going on........

I'm not even going to attempt to read the posts.......

This one was just too funny, and I don't even know what you're talking about now!!!!

I think I'll go to bed now.......ha ha ha

Dana

[Jim Chabot]

I'm going to confess up front that I know absolutely nothing about the average lifespan of a Roman citizen at that time (I know Paul was a citizen - was Timothy?). I do, however, know that (as Jim pointed out) average lifespan is a very tricky statistic as a result of infant mortality rate. If 50% of people die by age two, then even if the other 50% live to be 70, your average lifespan sits around 36. If we are talking about how old Timothy was, then we are no longer talking about relatively subjective points. This particular point is 100% objective. As such, I would like to see where each of you is getting your statistics on the matter, especially since the trickiness of this statistic is compounded by the difficulty of getting hard and fast, factual information about a culture that existed 2000 years ago. Could you guys give me a link to the studies you got these life expectancies from?

No studies used here. Perhaps I shouldn't have interjected infant mortality to the discussion. Providing opportunity for Shea to research statistics is like adding fuel to the fire. My point, that I have mangled badly is that age is determined by attitude and not by statistical data. Old is still old regardless of how many people attain it, for it is perception. I'm just guessing here, but my guess is that the statistics are a reflection of the health care system of the day or lack thereof. I'm guessing that many who passed on would have lived today, due to advances in medicine and care. That said, I am also guessing that the onset of greying hair, wrinkles and the general appearance that would suggest age has not changed much over time. Thus we find the Psalmist declaring back in a day when the statistics were surely worse than in Roman times, this observation.

Psa 90:10 The days of our years [are] threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength [they be] fourscore years, yet [is] their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

I have no studies or data, so again I am guessing and I want to freely admit that. My guess would be that Paul was of a similar age as the other apostles, my guess is that they were all of the same age as Jesus, perhaps a few years younger. Jesus waited until he was 30 to enter ministry, he certainly had the ability at a much younger age as we see him demonstrate this at the age of 12. Again, just guessing that a Rabbi at age 30 would disciple those of comparable age or perhaps a bit younger with the expectation that they would enter service at the age of 30. Paul as a disciple of Gamaliel was in this mix following a path parallel to Jesus disciples, I m guessing a similar age here. So my guess (and I hope that I have used this word enough here) is that Paul was probably 64 or 65 at the time he wrote to Timothy. My guess is that Timothy would be in his early thirties. This would be in line with the traditional age of entrance being 30 and Paul's admonition to not let others despise Timothy's youth. Should Timothy be younger than thirty, I think that we would have found something in the NT, that would indicate that the traditional age of 30 had been modified, discounted or abandoned. We do not find this to be the case.

[Tami Martin]

but I still disagree as I believe young people can be great senior pastors.

I have no problem disagreeing with you Hank :) And in some ways I can agree with you. I'm just hoping that the Church (universal, or at least here in America) has not moved to youth worship (that is, worship of youth, not worship by youth) to emulate the culture around us.

But I'll just say, that young person who makes a great senior pastor? It has nothing to do with his or her age. And there are plenty of young people in those positions who will become old people in those positions who have no business being in those positions for all of the reasons other than age. I am positive that when my pastor previous to my current one "felt the call" it was more likely the after effects of a spicy bowl of chili and not the Spirit of God. But when he was a young man, and untried, he was given a pulpit.

[Hal Paul]

The rest of the story ....

The church where Pearline and I were married (http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pictures/Wayne/Cable_Paul_Wedding.htm) is now Rusty's Pancake & Steak House. The fellowship hall and SS class room section is Rusty's Lounge. The church where Hal was dedicated is now an apartment building.

Pursuing this bunny trail a bit further; yes I was thinking of those two churches and used their respective circumstances to make something of an inside joke, but I was also thinking of the church in Annapolis that has just been renovated and converted into an apartment/office building, and the church in Baltimore that closed, fell into disrepair, then was "rescued" and is now a city owned community center, and the two churches on highway 174 that have stood vacant for years with boarded up windows and a chained off parking lots despite the fact they are in an epicenter of a region with significant population growth. But more significantly I was thinking of the soldiers on my last two deployments, one with 23 soldiers and the other with 15. In both cases I was the oldest member of teams made up of people most of whom are young enough to be my children. Of those people, only one expressed any real interest in any form of Christian walk. All the others spoke of religious faith as something quaint that their mother or grandparents had, or held religious views that could best be described as post-theological.

[Charlotte 'Mercer' Burton]

Should Timothy be younger than thirty, I think that we would have found something in the NT, that would indicate that the traditional age of 30 had been modified, discounted or abandoned. We do not find this to be the case.

I would disagree with you here. I would suggest we find that to be exactly the case. Everywhere you look, they're talking about how young Timothy was. If he entered the ministry at the same age as everyone else did, then I would think that his age would be far less remarkable and thus, less frequently remarked about. In my mind the mere fact that the NT authors go out of their way to mention Timothy's youth would indicate that he had entered the ministry at an age significantly younger than was traditional. No one talks about how young you are to be in college if you enter your college at the traditional age of 18. They talk about how young you are if you enter college at 15 or 16.

[Jim Chabot]

I would disagree with you here. I would suggest we find that to be exactly the case. Everywhere you look, they're talking about how young Timothy was. If he entered the ministry at the same age as everyone else did, then I would think that his age would be far less remarkable and thus, less frequently remarked about. In my mind the mere fact that the NT authors go out of their way to mention Timothy's youth would indicate that he had entered the ministry at an age significantly younger than was traditional. No one talks about how young you are to be in college if you enter your college at the traditional age of 18. They talk about how young you are if you enter college at 15 or 16.

Ok, so I'll quit guessing and do a little digging. Only a little mind you. According to Polycrates, Timothy died in the year AD97 at the age of 80. Most everything I found searching around agrees with the dates of AD17 - AD80 as the years of Timothy's lifespan. That would put him at 48 years of age when Paul referred to his "youth", and bear in mind these "youth" references aren't to be found just everywhere you look, actually I only find this one. Now Paul does refer to him as his "son" in the faith, I don't think that this is the same thing.

Just food for thought.

[Shea Zellweger]

I would disagree with you here. I would suggest we find that to be exactly the case. Everywhere you look, they're talking about how young Timothy was. If he entered the ministry at the same age as everyone else did, then I would think that his age would be far less remarkable and thus, less frequently remarked about. In my mind the mere fact that the NT authors go out of their way to mention Timothy's youth would indicate that he had entered the ministry at an age significantly younger than was traditional. No one talks about how young you are to be in college if you enter your college at the traditional age of 18. They talk about how young you are if you enter college at 15 or 16.

I think this is very well put. If a given age is commonplace for someone to be doing something, people will not be looking down on him/her for his/her youth. Nobody would've batted an eye if Timothy entered into leadership at the age of 30 or higher, because that was when people in the Jewish context entered into leadership. In Greek/Roman culture, it was very common for leaders to be even younger. Timothy was the leader of the local congregations at Ephesus- he wasn't a "bishop" or other "high-ranking" church official. If anything, Paul was serving as a Bishop and Timothy was simply the local "ordinary." If we take this letter as having been written somewhere between 65 and 70 AD (a very early estimate...), it would be written shortly after the reign of Nero, who ascended to the throne of the entire empire at the age of 25. Are we to believe that Timothy was too young to be a humble parish priest while one of his contemporaries was ruling the known world?

[Shea Zellweger]

Ok, so I'll quit guessing and do a little digging. Only a little mind you. According to Polycrates, Timothy died in the year AD97 at the age of 80. Most everything I found searching around agrees with the dates of AD17 - AD80 as the years of Timothy's lifespan. That would put him at 48 years of age when Paul referred to his "youth", and bear in mind these "youth" references aren't to be found just everywhere you look, actually I only find this one. Now Paul does refer to him as his "son" in the faith, I don't think that this is the same thing.

Just food for thought.

Sure, and how old does Polycrates say Paul was at the time? I can't find that answer, but I've yet to find a source that dates the birth of Saul/Paul earlier than 2 CE. It's been pretty well established at this point that Jesus was born in 4 BCE at the latest, since that's the year Herod died. That would mark a 6 year difference in age, and put Paul at 27 (at the oldest) at the death and resurrection of Christ. The timeline of Acts lacks dates, but it's likely that the conversion of Saul took place in the first 2 years of the early Church- those contending for Paul's position as the 12th apostle place it very early, while other scholars push it back a bit, but the ones that push it back also tend to place the birth of Saul closer to 10 CE, making him younger. So again, even if Timothy wasn't less than 30 (which logic would tell us he was), it's very likely that Paul was, and that just makes a stronger case...

[Jim Chabot]

Timothy was the leader of the local congregations at Ephesus- he wasn't a "bishop" or other "high-ranking" church official. If anything, Paul was serving as a Bishop and Timothy was simply the local "ordinary."

Ah but there is where tradition would disagree with your assessment. There is a large consensus that would say that Timothy was indeed Bishop of Ephesus.


If we take this letter as having been written somewhere between 65 and 70 AD (a very early estimate...), it would be written shortly after the reign of Nero, who ascended to the throne of the entire empire at the age of 25. Are we to believe that Timothy was too young to be a humble parish priest while one of his contemporaries was ruling the known world?

Again tradition would place the age of Timothy quite a ways north of 30. He was martyred by an unruly mob of pagans at the ripe olde age of 80. in AD97, he would have been 48 according to your early estimate.

[Jim Chabot]

Sure, and how old does Polycrates say Paul was at the time? I can't find that answer, but I've yet to find a source that dates the birth of Saul/Paul earlier than 2 CE. It's been pretty well established at this point that Jesus was born in 4 BCE at the latest, since that's the year Herod died. That would mark a 6 year difference in age, and put Paul at 27 (at the oldest) at the death and resurrection of Christ. The timeline of Acts lacks dates, but it's likely that the conversion of Saul took place in the first 2 years of the early Church- those contending for Paul's position as the 12th apostle place it very early, while other scholars push it back a bit, but the ones that push it back also tend to place the birth of Saul closer to 10 CE, making him younger. So again, even if Timothy wasn't less than 30 (which logic would tell us he was), it's very likely that Paul was, and that just makes a stronger case...

I need to rush out the door to get to camp on time, but quickly I would say that logic would dictate that Paul be at least 30 during his short tenure as chief sinner and church persecutor. Hard to imagine the pharisee of pharisee's breaking the "code". They weren't "more like guidelines" back then.

[Shea Zellweger]

Ah but there is where tradition would disagree with your assessment. There is a large consensus that would say that Timothy was indeed Bishop of Ephesus.


The argument for Timothy as a Bishop of Ephesus is the same one which places Peter as the first Pope. It's an ascription of Catholic church hierarchy to a time period in which such did not exist. There were apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Of that group, Timothy is generally classified with the apostles or the pastors. It's also worth nothing that even among traditions which call Timothy a Bishop, they assert that he was ordained and later ascended to the Bishopric some time later.



Again tradition would place the age of Timothy quite a ways north of 30. He was martyred by an unruly mob of pagans at the ripe olde age of 80. in AD97, he would have been 48 according to your early estimate.

The majority of sources do not say Timothy died at 80 in the year 97, but rather that he died in the year 80, 15 years after his "ordination" in 65. There is a lesser tradition which says Timothy was martyred 30 years after Paul, and since the most conservative estimate for the writing of the last Pauline Epistle is 67, it's necessary for Timothy to have died in 97, so they change it from the year 80 to the age of 80. At least one version of the martyrdom of Timothy is that he died on January 22, CE 72, which would mean that if he died at 80, he was actually older than Jesus and Paul, and that just makes no sense. There are several other dates and years and ages put forth for his death, but the most commonly accepted is that it was in the year 80, with the age unspecified.

[Shea Zellweger]

I need to rush out the door to get to camp on time, but quickly I would say that logic would dictate that Paul be at least 30 during his short tenure as chief sinner and church persecutor. Hard to imagine the pharisee of pharisee's breaking the "code". They weren't "more like guidelines" back then.

"chief sinner and church persecutor"? Paul was a holder of coats. He was still doing the tasks of a low ranking disciple at the point of the martyrdom of Stephen, and required special permissions and letters in order to carry out the persecution of the church. His personal resume is that he was a "hebrew of hebrews," not a "pharisee of pharisees," and there is nothing in Philippians 3 to suggest that he held any position of authority in his former way of life.

[Ryan Plott]

I have no problem disagreeing with you Hank :) And in some ways I can agree with you. I'm just hoping that the Church (universal, or at least here in America) has not moved to youth worship (that is, worship of youth, not worship by youth) to emulate the culture around us.

But I'll just say, that young person who makes a great senior pastor? It has nothing to do with his or her age. And there are plenty of young people in those positions who will become old people in those positions who have no business being in those positions for all of the reasons other than age. I am positive that when my pastor previous to my current one "felt the call" it was more likely the after effects of a spicy bowl of chili and not the Spirit of God. But when he was a young man, and untried, he was given a pulpit.

Then I guess we get to part in agreement! I don't have a problem with anything you say above, though I wouldn't know anything about your former pastor's fondness for spicy chili. :)

[Paul DeBaufer]

I need to rush out the door to get to camp on time, but quickly I would say that logic would dictate that Paul be at least 30 during his short tenure as chief sinner and church persecutor. Hard to imagine the pharisee of pharisee's breaking the "code". They weren't "more like guidelines" back then.

Hmm. Seems Paul himself talks about how he had advanced "in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age" (Gal. 1:14, NIV). So, I don't think that 27 is beyond the realm of reasonable. He was a student of Gamaliel but no mention is made of him having his own students. And, if I recall correctly, wasn't 30 the traditional age at which a rabbi would call his disciples? Did a disciple go immediately after leaving his rabbi to call his own students? Because as I seem to get it children from 6-10 studied Torah (rote memorization), those who showed promise went on to further study, those that did not learned their father's trade. The best of the best of the students who completed this second phase of training might be called by a rabbi. So a disciple might be 18 or so. This further education was one of the criteria for holding off on getting married a couple years. How long would they have stayed with their rabbi?

All of this to say that I do not think that Timothy was 30 yet or Paul wouldn't have mentioned his age and told him not to let people look down on him because of it. And by Paul's own words we find that he too was further along for his age than most.

[Hans Deventer]

It seems to me this discussion is a prime example of wanting to have previously established ideas confirmed by the Scriptures. And the one who finds the most Scriptural evidence "wins", however, nobody's mind is changed for the ideas remain and we just look for further evidence or don't take the opponent's evidence seriously.

Jim has been looking for Scriptures to put a badly functioning pastor out of office, I've been trying to find a reading that prevents a faithful minister of God to be pushed out because some merciless church board member thought he could do so.

Same with the age thing. It seems to me we need to start from the same situation before we can find the same meaning in the Scriptures.

[Jim Chabot]

Very well said my friend! I had been thinking along similar lies throughout much of this, as I realize that the data I present isn't conclusive, I have also noticed that the data presented by others in opposition is scant in it's connection to reality. But then I have to consider that the opposite view must be valid as well, others have presented data that is not conclusive in response to my references that hang by the slenderest of threads.

On a personal note, I must tell you how happy I was to read your words this morning. Over the last few days I had thought over the idea of taking offense to your comments regarding my thought process as Calvinist. While at the same time thinking that I should leave it as just something said in the heat of debate. I'm very happy this morning that in the end I had decided to leave it alone.

This debate on youth has been a little difficult for me. For although I do hold the position that one should wait until 30, that position is personal, it is a decision that I had made for myself, and of course has a long time ago become irrelevant for me. I am cognizant that for Shea and Hank, the position they take could have consequences, they have something at stake. I say this not to discredit their thought on this, but rather to say that I like, love and respect you guys, and I need to throw Ben into the mix even though he hasn't weighed in. I have tried my best to explain my position without offending any of you, I hope that I have done that.

[Hans Deventer]

On a personal note, I must tell you how happy I was to read your words this morning. Over the last few days I had thought over the idea of taking offense to your comments regarding my thought process as Calvinist. While at the same time thinking that I should leave it as just something said in the heat of debate. I'm very happy this morning that in the end I had decided to leave it alone.

Jim, don't get me wrong. I saw the reasoning as Calvinist, I wasn't saying you ARE a Calvinist. People change, some for better, some for worse, and that goes for ministers as well. And some, no doubt the ones you had in mind, should never have become a minister at all. I just wanted to clarify that as we don't believe in once saved, always saved, neither should we believe in once a minister, always a minister, because the consequence of that would be if at one time in a minister's life a problem occurs, that would mean (s)he never had a true call at all. I think we've all seen people fall from grace, without having to deny their earlier salvation and usefulness. I guess I should have explained that and used friendlier words anyway. My apologies.


This debate on youth has been a little difficult for me. For although I do hold the position that one should wait until 30, that position is personal, it is a decision that I had made for myself, and of course has a long time ago become irrelevant for me. I am cognizant that for Shea and Hank, the position they take could have consequences, they have something at stake. I say this not to discredit their thought on this, but rather to say that I like, love and respect you guys, and I need to throw Ben into the mix even though he hasn't weighed in. I have tried my best to explain my position without offending any of you, I hope that I have done that.

Jim, even the very best principle can have exceptions. Perhaps that is the way to approach it: as a rule of thumb, without becoming too dogmatic about it. That allows you to discuss it more lightly too.

[Paul DeBaufer]

It seems to me this discussion is a prime example of wanting to have previously established ideas confirmed by the Scriptures. And the one who finds the most Scriptural evidence "wins", however, nobody's mind is changed for the ideas remain and we just look for further evidence or don't take the opponent's evidence seriously.

Jim has been looking for Scriptures to put a badly functioning pastor out of office, I've been trying to find a reading that prevents a faithful minister of God to be pushed out because some merciless church board member thought he could do so.

Same with the age thing. It seems to me we need to start from the same situation before we can find the same meaning in the Scriptures.

I think that in all situations we need to leave room for the workings and advice of the Holy Spirit, because isn't He our Adviser in these matters? Obviously a pastor who is functioning badly needs to be removed. At the same time we need to protect those pastors who are still going a good and faithful job from being pushed out over some overly strict adherence to some legalism. As for age I would think maturity is more important than chronology--I know many in their 40s who have less maturity than some of the 16 year-olds I know.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, don't get me wrong. I saw the reasoning as Calvinist, I wasn't saying you ARE a Calvinist. People change, some for better, some for worse, and that goes for ministers as well. And some, no doubt the ones you had in mind, should never have become a minister at all. I just wanted to clarify that as we don't believe in once saved, always saved, neither should we believe in once a minister, always a minister, because the consequence of that would be if at one time in a minister's life a problem occurs, that would mean (s)he never had a true call at all. I think we've all seen people fall from grace, without having to deny their earlier salvation and usefulness. I guess I should have explained that and used friendlier words anyway. My apologies.


No problem. I think I understand you a little better now. I could have explained better myself. Beneath my reasoning was/is my belief that rebellious children or family problems very often do not reflect a changing situation, rather they are often an unveiling of a long standing situation that has become intolerable. I realize that this isn't always the case.

And no I do not even remotely hold to the convoluted logic that would say that if one is not now a believer, then it is impossible for them to ever have been one. My thought is that Irresistible grace coupled with the Perseverance of the saints, inevitable runs headlong into Hebrews 6, where they are proven to be false. Enter the convoluted logic of the Calvinists here at this point.

[Jim Chabot]

How about the open/classic theism angle. I'll admit that I'm a little puzzled as to how this applies, I'm not saying that it doesn't apply just that I must be missing something here.

I understand that God is free and has on occasion changed his mind. I also understand that if our theology has no openness whatsoever then our prayers have not much chance of effectiveness. I'm thinking of Hezekiah here and his prayer whereby God did change his mind.

I guess my question is this; How "open" is open, or is this something with wide parameters? Do we say that God changes his "rules" to use the term loosely. And if we do say this, do we also contend that he does so without clear instruction?

I'm guessing that I am quite "classic" in my outlook, but I am curious as to how far "open" will take us. My concern is that if unchecked, it could lead to each one doing what is right in their own eyes.

[Shea Zellweger]

How about the open/classic theism angle. I'll admit that I'm a little puzzled as to how this applies, I'm not saying that it doesn't apply just that I must be missing something here.

I understand that God is free and has on occasion changed his mind. I also understand that if our theology has no openness whatsoever then our prayers have not much chance of effectiveness. I'm thinking of Hezekiah here and his prayer whereby God did change his mind.

I guess my question is this; How "open" is open, or is this something with wide parameters? Do we say that God changes his "rules" to use the term loosely. And if we do say this, do we also contend that he does so without clear instruction?

I'm guessing that I am quite "classic" in my outlook, but I am curious as to how far "open" will take us. My concern is that if unchecked, it could lead to each one doing what is right in their own eyes.

How "open" we take things is a matter of preference. I would not say God changes the rules per se, though I would say certain rules are culturally bound and not consistent with the general direction of where Scripture leads. An Open Theism that leads to a total rejection of Scripture is clearly wrong. An Open Theism that recognizes conflicting themes in Scripture and determines that one of those themes should eventually win over the other (say, women in ministry) is fine by me. However, the point of Open Theism is not to reject or affirm certain Scriptures, but to recognize the free agency of humanity and express it in the way we best know how.

Paul's instructions to Timothy were for appointing elders(overseers)/deacons. Just like with our own system, before someone was "ordained," he had to be vetted by the church and determined to be qualified for the position, and it is during this vetting process that things like rebellious children would be taken into account. If we take a "closed" approach, then we would say that God knows whether those kids will rebel in the future, and so a person's ordination will need to be constantly re-examined.
On the other hand, an open approach would say that This command for rebellious children is most applicable at the point of ordination. If a child rebels later on, it does not nullify that minister's call to service. Depending on the severity of the rebellion, I would be inclined to encourage that minister to think about taking time away to focus on his/her family, because I am very much family-first oriented in the duties of a minister. However, that post-ordination rebellion does not factor in to the person's initial ordination, and should not lead to its revocation or suspension. In essence, I don't think a person should be expelled from the ministry for a spouse or child who has a change of heart unless it can be demonstrated that the minister caused that change. I also think that if we allowed for the suspension of ordination on such grounds, it would be nearly impossible to agree on when a child has crossed the line into rebellion. My son knows he's not allowed to do certain things, but he still tries to do them every chance he gets. The last thing I need as a minister is to have the congregation choose to reject me on the grounds that I have a normal 2-year-old child, rather than some angelic variation on the theme. Yet, if we allow for re-examination on these grounds, that's precisely what will happen when this or that parishioner gets upset with something the pastor did or said. So for me, both the theological and practical implications of such an approach to the passage in question suggest to me that the best reading of these requirements are applied at the point of ordination, and accompanied with the understanding that the minister is responsible for upholding these standards, but cannot be held responsible for the chosen actions of others.