MennoNet.com

Nifty technicolor in your posts, Sudsy.

ohio jones wrote:

Sudsy wrote:It sounds to me that you associate a pastor role with having 'authority over a man' whereas I don't. Actually there is no scripture saying that a woman cannot be a pastor.

Sudsy wrote:Our MB church and MC USA (I believe) have removed this restriction to allow everyone 'In Christ' to participate in any role. Are we all going to hell for it ? Not in my understanding of the NT.

Well, there's the requirement for a church leader (pastor, deacon, minister, bishop, overseer, elder -- pick your passage and translation) to be the husband of one wife. If you remove enough restrictions, you can end up interpreting this like some in MCUSA. I think they are using way too much creativity with the "husband" part, but I don't see a stopping point between your position and theirs.

MWR wrote:Lea and her partner will marry in November. Shortly thereafter they will move to New Mexico, when she will begin serving as Albuquerque Mennonite’s pastor.

How do you approach an unmarried man who is called to some leadership role but is not 'the husband of one wife' or the man who was divorced before he became a believer and has remarried a believer and now has a solid family life ? I think some hard line interpretations miss the reason behind these qualifiers.

But I guess if one considers change to be a guaranteed slippery slope, then rebaptism when Anabaptism was founded also was likely regarded as a slippery slope interpretation of scripture.

Sudsy wrote:

ohio jones wrote:

Sudsy wrote:It sounds to me that you associate a pastor role with having 'authority over a man' whereas I don't. Actually there is no scripture saying that a woman cannot be a pastor.

Sudsy wrote:Our MB church and MC USA (I believe) have removed this restriction to allow everyone 'In Christ' to participate in any role. Are we all going to hell for it ? Not in my understanding of the NT.

Well, there's the requirement for a church leader (pastor, deacon, minister, bishop, overseer, elder -- pick your passage and translation) to be the husband of one wife. If you remove enough restrictions, you can end up interpreting this like some in MCUSA. I think they are using way too much creativity with the "husband" part, but I don't see a stopping point between your position and theirs.

MWR wrote:Lea and her partner will marry in November. Shortly thereafter they will move to New Mexico, when she will begin serving as Albuquerque Mennonite’s pastor.

How do you approach an unmarried man who is called to some leadership role but is not 'the husband of one wife' or the man who was divorced before he became a believer and has remarried a believer and now has a solid family life ? I think some hard line interpretations miss the reason behind these qualifiers.

But I guess if one considers change to be a guaranteed slippery slope, then rebaptism when Anabaptism was founded also was likely regarded as a slippery slope interpretation of scripture.

Another example of whataboutism.

"Husband of one wife" can mean "a one-woman man" which would not exclude a single man, whether previously married (to no more than one woman) or not. It would exclude a remarried man. Whether that misses the reason or not depends on what the reason is. I think the reason is that a leader must have a singleness of focus; someone who can be distracted by other women could also be distracted by other gods and thus is not qualified to be a leader.

I picture the slippery slope as an inverted catenary. None of us are perfectly in the center (though some of us are pretty close ), but the farther out you get the more downward pull there is.

ohio jones wrote:

Sudsy wrote:

ohio jones wrote:
Well, there's the requirement for a church leader (pastor, deacon, minister, bishop, overseer, elder -- pick your passage and translation) to be the husband of one wife. If you remove enough restrictions, you can end up interpreting this like some in MCUSA. I think they are using way too much creativity with the "husband" part, but I don't see a stopping point between your position and theirs.

How do you approach an unmarried man who is called to some leadership role but is not 'the husband of one wife' or the man who was divorced before he became a believer and has remarried a believer and now has a solid family life ? I think some hard line interpretations miss the reason behind these qualifiers.

But I guess if one considers change to be a guaranteed slippery slope, then rebaptism when Anabaptism was founded also was likely regarded as a slippery slope interpretation of scripture.

Another example of whataboutism.

"Husband of one wife" can mean "a one-woman man" which would not exclude a single man, whether previously married (to no more than one woman) or not. It would exclude a remarried man. Whether that misses the reason or not depends on what the reason is. I think the reason is that a leader must have a singleness of focus; someone who can be distracted by other women could also be distracted by other gods and thus is not qualified to be a leader.

I picture the slippery slope as an inverted catenary. None of us are perfectly in the center (though some of us are pretty close ), but the farther out you get the more downward pull there is.

Thankyou. I don't agree in total but most Anabaptists don't agree in total and sometimes not that often.

Sudsy wrote: How do you approach an unmarried man who is called to some leadership role but is not 'the husband of one wife' or the man who was divorced before he became a believer and has remarried a believer and now has a solid family life ? I think some hard line interpretations miss the reason behind these qualifiers.

Neither of these men would be qualified to be a pastor.
Regarding the phrase "who is called" - who is doing this calling? I personally put little stock in someone saying that they have a "calling" when it goes against what is taught in the Bible. Such as a woman or a single man or a remarried divorced person saying they are "called".
Another thing about who is doing the calling - Our practice is that the church does the calling in conjunction with the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying this is the only way it must be done, but there are benefits with this way if you have a close church fellowship like many plain communities have.

Sudsy wrote: But I guess if one considers change to be a guaranteed slippery slope, then rebaptism when Anabaptism was founded also was likely regarded as a slippery slope interpretation of scripture.

I don't think Felix Manz was drowned because he was on a slippery slope. He was drowned as a heretic - none of our modern nice slippery slope language.

RZehr wrote:

Sudsy wrote: How do you approach an unmarried man who is called to some leadership role but is not 'the husband of one wife' or the man who was divorced before he became a believer and has remarried a believer and now has a solid family life ? I think some hard line interpretations miss the reason behind these qualifiers.

Neither of these men would be qualified to be a pastor.
Regarding the phrase "who is called" - who is doing this calling? I personally put little stock in someone saying that they have a "calling" when it goes against what is taught in the Bible. Such as a woman or a single man or a remarried divorced person saying they are "called".
Another thing about who is doing the calling - Our practice is that the church does the calling in conjunction with the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying this is the only way it must be done, but there are benefits with this way if you have a close church fellowship like many plain communities have.

Sudsy had provided the church service video which was encouraging women to step up to the plate & become pastors- after listening to the propaganda, and misinterpretation of scripture passages & misapplying others- the pastor then had an altar call for women to be prayed over for this 'calling'. I've truly never seen anything like it. I now understand how MCUSA has operated in furthering the direction it is taking people. It's happened in many denominations in the same way, but again we are reminded of the falling away before the Son of Man returns-false teaching, false doctrines, false prophets- are abounding in these days we live, in large numbers.

RZehr wrote:

Sudsy wrote: How do you approach an unmarried man who is called to some leadership role but is not 'the husband of one wife' or the man who was divorced before he became a believer and has remarried a believer and now has a solid family life ? I think some hard line interpretations miss the reason behind these qualifiers.

Neither of these men would be qualified to be a pastor.
Regarding the phrase "who is called" - who is doing this calling? I personally put little stock in someone saying that they have a "calling" when it goes against what is taught in the Bible. Such as a woman or a single man or a remarried divorced person saying they are "called".
Another thing about who is doing the calling - Our practice is that the church does the calling in conjunction with the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying this is the only way it must be done, but there are benefits with this way if you have a close church fellowship like many plain communities have.

And you have your interpretations of scripture as do I. God has used many single men who had no wife to possibly detract them and some, like RC priests, have and never will qualify as the 'husband of one wife'. Believing in forgiveness and new beginnings, the remarried man is the 'husband of one wife' as the previous marriage is no longer binding. So, we are not going to agree on our interpretations. As for callings and gifts to teach and preach, these are up to the Holy Spirit to give and not our interpretations of scripture which we all think are the right ones. It sounds like you see these interpretations of scripture 'deal breakers' for one's salvation, I'm not sure. I don't. I'm glad there are places of worship and Christian communities where we can serve the Lord with the interpretations we have and especially when some of us can find them within Anabaptism.

RZehr wrote:

Sudsy wrote: How do you approach an unmarried man who is called to some leadership role but is not 'the husband of one wife' or the man who was divorced before he became a believer and has remarried a believer and now has a solid family life ? I think some hard line interpretations miss the reason behind these qualifiers.

Neither of these men would be qualified to be a pastor.
Regarding the phrase "who is called" - who is doing this calling? I personally put little stock in someone saying that they have a "calling" when it goes against what is taught in the Bible. Such as a woman or a single man or a remarried divorced person saying they are "called".
Another thing about who is doing the calling - Our practice is that the church does the calling in conjunction with the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying this is the only way it must be done, but there are benefits with this way if you have a close church fellowship like many plain communities have.

Not all conservative churches refuse to ordain single men. Four of my friends were ordained as single men. All four are married today, but three of them had no girl friends when they were ordained.

In fact, I didn't realize that some conservative churches wouldn't ordain a single man who qualified otherwise. Probably the Ultra-Conservatives might. Hats Off, what would your group do?

Yes I'm aware that single men have been ordained. I don't think it is best.
This is a Salvation Issue thread, so I should state that I don't necessarily believe this to be a salvation issue. I also would be slow to say that it would be a salvation issue in regard to a women pastor as well. But at the same time, I would never condone it or support it.