Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

Now im not sure if you read my previous post, but i assume you didn’t otherwise you wouldn’t ask me this similar question. Please read what i wrote previously.

I interacted with your comments and showed how you cannot link two passages together – one passage showing that marriage is a good and the other passage where marriage is shown to be a bad desire. I am seriously wondering if you actually read the objections to your view? Why is it that you just disregard the objections and just ask us to read you again? Can you actually not see it that you your view brings contradictions?

If there is something that I have missed, then please tell me which comment it is that you think I missed and which paragraph in the comment. The comments are numbered for that reason.

Some people are good listeners. Others are not. I suspect that you have a problem understanding the objections to your view for if you really understood the objections, you would not ask us to reread your comments. Your problem, in my humble opinion, is that you just don’t want to put in the effort to understand the argument before you refute it. Because of this you go around the bush never interacting with our position and never seriously looking at the objections to your view. The position I take is that if one’s view is the truth, then the view is only strengthened by answering the challenges. I see you avoiding so much of the argument.

For example I copied the Lexham Syntactic New Testament Sentence Analysis that shows that marriage is the direct reference to condemnation yet you completely ignored this. Why is that? Is your argument any better by ignoring the Greek grammar and sentence construction? I would hardly think so.

Second of all i think we are actually closer than you realise Cheryl on this passage. I am not denying that they pledged to be dedicated to Christ. In fact i support this because the passage says they are to continue in prayer and supplications. However i am also reading more than just verse 12 which extends Pauls intention to support for help aswell.

Your problem is that you are failing to deal with verse 12 in its context and you right away want to move onto another passage that it in a completely different context.

Next if you really believe that these widows (the ones on the “roll”) have “pledged” themselves to Christ and the church has accepted that pledge as an entrance onto a special “roll” then how can you not see their work as a ministry?

The difference though between us, is that you think this is an obscure type of ‘eldership’ or as one of your own sources made up, deaconesses.

The exclusive class of older widows in ministry is no longer part of our society and the church perhaps no longer has a need to support these women, but their ministry to the entire body of Christ should not be denied. I never used the term “eldership” or any other kind of “ship”. If you think I did, please quote the comment number to prove your claim. Again, I think you have a problem with reading and understanding the opposition’s viewpoint. What I am arguing for is for women in ministry who are supported by the church. The very term “elder” refers to older people and these elders are women who are ministering to the church. Do you have a problem with that?

Secondly the sources I quoted included complementarian sources who are willing to see the text for what it says. You did point out that one source called them deaconnesses. Another source called them presbyters. Another said this was an “office” implying that there was a specific “work” that they did that was recognized as a ministry.

I will carry on my respond in the next comment.