Women as elders in a church?

[Vanellus]

My post has been prompted by a thread in the non-discussion forum, Requests for Christian Advice. The thread question was posed by jameshjr and PloverWing replied, included this statement:

"There appear to have been reasons for Paul to advise Timothy's church to have married men as elders in Timothy's particular church. Whether this restriction applies to churches other than Timothy's, and how to incorporate insights from other writings like Galatians 3 and Romans 16, is a matter of disagreement among Christians."

I was curious about what these reasons (if they exist) are and whether or not the same reasons applied in Titus' church. The relevant Bible passages are:

Timothy:
This is a trustworthy saying: If anyone aspires to be an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not dependent on wine, not violent but gentle, peaceable, and free of the love of money

Titus:
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, having children who are believers and who are not open to accusation of indiscretion or insubordination.

As a more general point, given that the Requests for Christian Advice forum is non discussion (not always adhered to), shouldn't controversial statements of theology be avoided? Otherwise, such a forum could be used to push your own theological viewpoint unchallenged.

 

[PloverWing]

My post has been prompted by a thread in the non-discussion forum, Requests for Christian Advice. The thread question was posed by jameshjr and PloverWing replied, included this statement:

"There appear to have been reasons for Paul to advise Timothy's church to have married men as elders in Timothy's particular church. Whether this restriction applies to churches other than Timothy's, and how to incorporate insights from other writings like Galatians 3 and Romans 16, is a matter of disagreement among Christians."

I was curious about what these reasons (if they exist) are and whether or not the same reasons applied in Titus' church.

One possibility (suggested to me by the writings of Gilbert Bilezikian) is that Timothy's church needed leaders who had proven themselves as leaders of their families. If you can lead your wife and children and household in a temperate, self-controlled, teachable, nonviolent way, then that's a sign that you can also lead a church in a temperate, self-controlled, teachable, nonviolent way. We don't really get to peek behind the scenes much at Timothy's church; because Paul is taking for granted that Timothy knows the context of his own church, Paul doesn't explain the situation to 21st-century eavesdroppers like us. Possibly some of the leaders of Timothy's church were men who had trouble keeping their tempers under control, or who were overly domineering, and the advice was to pick leaders who had proven their self-control.

At that time, as I understand it, the patriarch of the household exercised strong leadership in that household. One wouldn't normally see a woman leading a Roman household in the same way. Ours is a different culture, and women have more opportunities to prove their self-control and leadership abilities in 21st-century America.

Titus' situation may have been similar.

Whatever we do with I Timothy and Titus, it has to take into account that 1) Paul says in Galatians that there is "neither male nor female" in Christ, and 2) Paul lists several female church leaders in Romans 16 and elsewhere, and speaks approvingly of them, so he can't have been forbidding all women from being church leaders.

As a more general point, given that the Requests for Christian Advice forum is non discussion (not always adhered to), shouldn't controversial statements of theology be avoided? Otherwise, such a forum could be used to push your own theological viewpoint unchallenged.

It's hard to avoid all controversial statements of theology, because Christians disagree about so many things. So, while your belief that women shouldn't be elders is indeed controversial, I think it was perfectly acceptable for you to voice that opinion in the course of giving someone advice. CF rules permit us to include our theological beliefs when giving advice; we just can't start arguing with each other about those opinions. (I will note, though, that even when we express our opinions in that forum, our job is mostly to help the OPs to discern their own beliefs and to take actions that are consistent with their beliefs.)

 

[Blade]

One must look at who they were talking to and the "time" in which they were talking. Take what Jesus said “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

So I think husband and wife and the Church pray and they can choose who they want.

 

[Vanellus]

PloverWing,

I didn't see anything in your post in this thread that delineated any special reasons, peculiar to Timothy's church, that led Paul to write his stipulation about the qualifications for being an elder. Yet your earlier "There appear to have been reasons for Paul to advise Timothy's church" indicated that you thought there were such special reasons. The possible reasons you gave would have pertained more generally in Paul's time. My concern was that you were limiting the application of the stipulation to Timothy's (and Titus') church(es) without providing any justification. This is still the case.

I haven't stated any personal belief on the matter, either in the OP or in the other forum thread. Where do you think I have stated that I believe that women shouldn't be elders? Quoting the passages in 1 Timothy and Titus does not constitute such a statement.

 

[anetazo]

Corinthians chapter 7, Paul advises not to marry. They're is nothing wrong with getting married. God needs a servant who is Focused and dedicated to serving God. PAIDEIA in Greek means = discipline, chastity. Servants of God can't be tied up in family functions. Jesus needs them focused on on God's will. Jesus will back me up on this. TAAH in Hebrew means = designate. They're is no room for distractions or worldly affairs. Psalm 84:10. For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be door keeper in the house of God. Than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. 85:8. I will hear what God the Lord will speak: For He will speak peace unto His people, and His saints; But let them not turn again to folly. Its obedience to God, and planting seeds for God. They're are lost souls in the world, they need servant of God to help get them on the right path. A servant of God must be focused, and ready to plant seeds in season, and out of season. Servants of God must have working knowledge of Gods word to be useful to God. CAKAR in Hebrew means = earned wages, rewards. Some people won't get any rewards from God. They didn't serve God. Wouldn't use their gifts and abilities to serve God, to be productive. Think this over.

 

[Doug Brents]

My post has been prompted by a thread in the non-discussion forum, Requests for Christian Advice. The thread question was posed by jameshjr and PloverWing replied, included this statement:

"There appear to have been reasons for Paul to advise Timothy's church to have married men as elders in Timothy's particular church. Whether this restriction applies to churches other than Timothy's, and how to incorporate insights from other writings like Galatians 3 and Romans 16, is a matter of disagreement among Christians."

I was curious about what these reasons (if they exist) are and whether or not the same reasons applied in Titus' church. The relevant Bible passages are:

Timothy:
This is a trustworthy saying: If anyone aspires to be an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not dependent on wine, not violent but gentle, peaceable, and free of the love of money

Titus:
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, having children who are believers and who are not open to accusation of indiscretion or insubordination.

There is nothing in these two passages that limits these instructions to these two congregations. These are general statements of the qualities and qualifications for anyone, anywhere, at any time who desires to be (or would be appointed as) an elder. Can a woman be the husband of just one wife? No! Then she cannot qualify as an elder of the Church. Does that mean that she cannot be a teacher? No. She is supposed to be a teacher and leader (Titus 2:3–5).

 

[Paidiske]

Can a woman be the husband of just one wife? No! Then she cannot qualify as an elder of the Church.

If, however, we take the point of that stipulation to be faithful monogamy (rather than making a point about gender), then she can qualify.

The main reason for thinking that Paul doesn't intend his instructions to be universal is that he elsewhere works with, commends and supports women in leadership roles, including presiding over churches which meet in their homes.

 

[Doug Brents]

If, however, we take the point of that stipulation to be faithful monogamy (rather than making a point about gender), then she can qualify.

If faithful monogamy were the point of this stipulation, then I believe that is what God would have said through His mouth-piece, Paul. Instead, God said in both of these letters that the elder must be the “husband of but one wife”.

The main reason for thinking that Paul doesn't intend his instructions to be universal is that he elsewhere works with, commends and supports women in leadership roles, including presiding over churches which meet in their homes.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman being in a place of leadership and influence in the Church. The wife of an elder must also be a good leader and have similar qualities of her husband because she will be called upon to lead and influence the Church at her husband’s side, but she is not the elder; she is not the person upon whom the responsibility of the Church rests.

 

[Paidiske]

If faithful monogamy were the point of this stipulation, then I believe that is what God would have said through His mouth-piece, Paul. Instead, God said in both of these letters that the elder must be the “husband of but one wife”.

I see. And you are familiar with the Greek idiom, mias guniakos andra, and how it was understood in its cultural context? And are certain that the translation, which we see in some Bibles, of "married only once" is not preferable?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman being in a place of leadership and influence in the Church. The wife of an elder must also be a good leader and have similar qualities of her husband because she will be called upon to lead and influence the Church at her husband’s side, but she is not the elder; she is not the person upon whom the responsibility of the Church rests.

And yet some of us are elders. And while Scripture does not make it easy to identify exactly who was and was not considered an elder in the NT church (it not using the term of individuals often) it is difficult to believe that Paul commended a woman apostle, a woman deacon, woman house church leaders, and so on, and yet considered none of them elders.

 

[Doug Brents]

I see. And you are familiar with the Greek idiom, mias guniakos andra, and how it was understood in its cultural context? And are certain that the translation, which we see in some Bibles, of "married only once" is not preferable?

No, I do not think that is a better interpretation. A man (or woman) whose spouse has died is no longer bound to that spouse, and is free to marry again without sin (Rom 7:1-3). I myself have been married twice, my first wife having died of cancer 12 years ago, and so my second marriage is my fully sanctioned and acceptable to God. When my children are old enough (currently 4 & 7) to understand and obey the Gospel, I will qualify to become an elder if my congregation chooses to appoint me as one.

And yet some of us are elders. And while Scripture does not make it easy to identify exactly who was and was not considered an elder in the NT church (it not using the term of individuals often) it is difficult to believe that Paul commended a woman apostle, a woman deacon, woman house church leaders, and so on, and yet considered none of them elders.

I see women who are leaders, teachers, and ministers of the Gospel in the first century, but I see no women who were Apostles (there wer only 14 men who were ever called Apostles, and the only mention I see that even comes close to calling a woman an apostle is Rom 16:7, and contrary to what I see in some translations it says “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding in the view of the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.”), and no woman can meet the qualifications of an elder as given by God in Scripture.

 

[Paidiske]

No, I do not think that is a better interpretation. A man (or woman) whose spouse has died is no longer bound to that spouse, and is free to marry again without sin (Rom 7:1-3). I myself have been married twice, my first wife having died of cancer 12 years ago, and so my second marriage is my fully sanctioned and acceptable to God. When my children are old enough (currently 4 & 7) to understand and obey the Gospel, I will qualify to become an elder if my congregation chooses to appoint me as one.

I would not consider you disqualified. But the point I was making is that the phrase is pointing to faithful monogamy; the focus is not on sex but on character.

I see women who are leaders, teachers, and ministers of the Gospel in the first century, but I see no women who were Apostles (there wer only 14 men who were ever called Apostles, and the only mention I see that even comes close to calling a woman an apostle is Rom 16:7, and contrary to what I see in some translations it says “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding in the view of the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.”), and no woman can meet the qualifications of an elder as given by God in Scripture.

And yet Junia has been recognised and remembered as an apostle since the earliest times of the church.
Many churches recognise that women are called and gifted as elders, and see no Scriptural impediment to authorising us.

 

[Doug Brents]

I would not consider you disqualified. But the point I was making is that the phrase is pointing to faithful monogamy; the focus is not on sex but on character.

But it is not pointing to faithful monogamy, although that is certainly part of the requirement. It is pointing to a person who is the HUSBAND of one WIFE, not the wife of but one husband. There has never been a female husband, nor a male wife. So the message is very clear.

And yet Junia has been recognised and remembered as an apostle since the earliest times of the church.
Many churches recognise that women are called and gifted as elders, and see no Scriptural impediment to authorising us.

The fact that groups of people (no matter how large or how long ago) believe a falsehood does not make it truth. It is God’s Word that is important here, not people’s thoughts about it. And since God, speaking through the pen of Paul, commanded that women are not to have authority over men, women are not authorized to hold the office of elder. You can believe what you want, but if it violates clear Biblical instruction, it is not Godly.

 

[Paidiske]

But it is not pointing to faithful monogamy, although that is certainly part of the requirement. It is pointing to a person who is the HUSBAND of one WIFE, not the wife of but one husband. There has never been a female husband, nor a male wife. So the message is very clear.

That is one interpretation. It is not the only possible interpretation.

The fact that groups of people (no matter how large or how long ago) believe a falsehood does not make it truth.

The Scriptural text refers to Junia as an apostle. Other people have believed it. That some others seek to find other ways to understand it, does not make it falsehood.

And since God, speaking through the pen of Paul, commanded that women are not to have authority over men,

No; he commanded that women were not to usurp authority, or domineer. That is not the same as the healthy exercise of authority.

You can believe what you want, but if it violates clear Biblical instruction, it is not Godly.

And yet the Biblical picture is more complex and more nuanced than you suggest.

 

[FireDragon76]

My post has been prompted by a thread in the non-discussion forum, Requests for Christian Advice. The thread question was posed by jameshjr and PloverWing replied, included this statement:

"There appear to have been reasons for Paul to advise Timothy's church to have married men as elders in Timothy's particular church. Whether this restriction applies to churches other than Timothy's, and how to incorporate insights from other writings like Galatians 3 and Romans 16, is a matter of disagreement among Christians."

I was curious about what these reasons (if they exist) are and whether or not the same reasons applied in Titus' church. The relevant Bible passages are:

Timothy:
This is a trustworthy saying: If anyone aspires to be an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not dependent on wine, not violent but gentle, peaceable, and free of the love of money

Titus:
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, having children who are believers and who are not open to accusation of indiscretion or insubordination.

As a more general point, given that the Requests for Christian Advice forum is non discussion (not always adhered to), shouldn't controversial statements of theology be avoided? Otherwise, such a forum could be used to push your own theological viewpoint unchallenged.

There is widespread scholarly agreement than neither the Epistle to Timothy or Titus were written by St. Paul. They were most likely written by people that knew of him and his teachings, however. They were probably written near the end of the 1st century up to the middle of the second century, generations after Paul was martyred.

First Epistle to Timothy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Doug Brents]

That is one interpretation. It is not the only possible interpretation.

If you believe that it is permissible to redefine words as you see fit to make a passage agree with your preconceived ideas, then you can make any passage say anything you want. But if you accept God’s authority and perfection then you must take words to mean what they meant in the first century, when husband meant man and wife meant woman. There can be no other interpretation of those two passages.

The Scriptural text refers to Junia as an apostle.

No, it says that she was recognized BY THE APOSTLES, not as an Apostle. The only people recognized in Scripture As Apostles were the 11, plus Judas, Matthias, and Paul. No others were ever referred to Apostles.

Other people have believed it. That some others seek to find other ways to understand it, does not make it falsehood.

So you are saying that just because others believe something makes it truth? So then God, through Paul, lied when He said that the Day of the Lord had not yet happened? Because if some believed it, it must have been true, right?

No; he commanded that women were not to usurp authority, or domineer. That is not the same as the healthy exercise of authority.

New International Version
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

New Living Translation
I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.

English Standard Version
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Berean Standard Bible
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.

exercise authority over
αὐθεντεῖν (authentein)
Verb - Present Infinitive Active
Strong's 831: To domineer, govern, have mastery over. From a compound of autos and an obsolete hentes; to act of oneself, i.e. dominate.

To exercise, assume, or have authority over a man is forbidden to women. She is not allowed that authority, so any such authority is by definition usurped. Why? God goes on to explain that it is because God made women second, and because woman was the first to sin.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.--The whole purpose of these weighty admonitions of the great founder of the Gentile Churches relegates Christian women to their own legitimate sphere of action and influence--the quiet of their own homes. St. Paul caught well the spirit of his Master here. He raised once and for ever the women of Christ out of the position of degradation and intellectual inferiority they had occupied in the various pagan systems of the East and West, and taught with all the weight of an Apostle--of an accredited teacher of divine wisdom--that woman was a fellow-heir with man of the glories of the kingdom,--where sex would exist no longer; but while teaching this great and elevating truth, St. Paul shows what is the only proper sphere in which woman should work, and in which she should exercise her influence and power; while man's work and duties lay in the busy world without, woman's work was exclusively confined to the quiet stillness of home. The Apostle then proceeds to ground these injunctions respecting the duties in public and private of the two sexes upon the original order of creation, and upon the circumstances which attended the fall.

 

[Paidiske]

If you believe that it is permissible to redefine words as you see fit to make a passage agree with your preconceived ideas, then you can make any passage say anything you want.

That's not what I'm doing. What I am doing is arguing that mias gunaikos andra is an idiom for marital faithfulness. We see that attested in general Koine Greek usage of the era.

No, it says that she was recognized BY THE APOSTLES, not as an Apostle.

The phrase in question is ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, "prominent among the apostles." Now, some argue that means that the apostles viewed her (and Andronicus) as a prominent... something else... but that is not the most straightforward meaning of the phrase.

The only people recognized in Scripture As Apostles were the 11, plus Judas, Matthias, and Paul. No others were ever referred to Apostles.

Well, not if you ignore instances like this one. And Barnabas in Acts 14:14, Titus and the unnamed "brothers" in 2 Cor 23; James the Lord's brother in Gal 1:19; Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25; Silvanus and Timothy as part of the "we" in 1 Thess 2:7. It seems apostleship is a broader category than you have recognised.

So you are saying that just because others believe something makes it truth?

No. But in this instance I am saying it adds weight to the evidence, if people (who still worship in the language this letter was written in) have understood this phrase to mean that Junia was an apostle, since the time the letter was originally received.

exercise authority over
αὐθεντεῖν (authentein)
Verb - Present Infinitive Active
Strong's 831: To domineer, govern, have mastery over. From a compound of autos and an obsolete hentes; to act of oneself, i.e. dominate.

Exactly. This word does not mean the normal, healthy exercise of authority. That is not what is being forbidden. Nor would this kind of exercise of authority be right for men; domineering is not a Christ-like way of leading.

Again, to understand Paul's use of the word here as forbidding women to lead or exercise authority, is to ignore Paul's actual practice, as attested throughout his letters, of accepting, supporting and commending women who did so.

 

[Doug Brents]

That's not what I'm doing. What I am doing is arguing that mias gunaikos andra is an idiom for marital faithfulness. We see that attested in general Koine Greek usage of the era.

I have been doing much research on this phrase, and there are some commentators who agree with you, but I had to search hard to find them. The majority of those I read say things like:

The use of the word aner (man) rather than the word anthropos precludes women (gune) from serving as elders or deacons.​

And:

Objection - All who are allowed into membership should be allowed into leadership.
Answer - The intent of the lists in Timothy and Titus is to exclude the unqualified. The phrase “one woman man” must exclude women. It would certainly excluded polygamists. The phrase “not a new convert” discriminates against new believers. The phrase “able to teach discriminates against those who are unable to teach.​

But looking back to 1 Tim 2:11-12, we can put this issue to rest.
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”
One of the stated qualifications for an elder is that he be able to teach the Word of God well (1 Tim 3:2), but women are not authorized to teach. Women must remain silent, and receive instruction submissively.

And the reason for this is given here (that you have not addressed, but completely skipped over) that woman was created second and sinned first. This is God’s mandate for women, not a man’s macho power trip.

The phrase in question is ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, "prominent among the apostles." Now, some argue that means that the apostles viewed her (and Andronicus) as a prominent... something else... but that is not the most straightforward meaning of the phrase.

Well, not if you ignore instances like this one. And Barnabas in Acts 14:14, Titus and the unnamed "brothers" in 2 Cor 23; James the Lord's brother in Gal 1:19; Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25; Silvanus and Timothy as part of the "we" in 1 Thess 2:7. It seems apostleship is a broader category than you have recognised.

The qualifications for an Apostle were given in Acts 1. And there were only 2 men (and no women) found who met those qualifications. Paul met these qualifications by spending three years in the Arabia and Damascus taking instruction directly from God (Gal 1:12, 17-18).

Exactly. This word does not mean the normal, healthy exercise of authority. That is not what is being forbidden. Nor would this kind of exercise of authority be right for men; domineering is not a Christ-like way of leading.

No, it is not just domineering that is being forbidden (although, as you say, that is forbidden to both men and women), but any exercise of authority over men. Women are to be submissive to men in the home, and in the Church. Women are given the duty and responsibility of teaching younger women, and bringing them up in submission and respect for men and God, but no woman is to have authority over any man in the Church or her home. And again, the reason for this is that God made man first, and woman sinned first (1 Tim 2:13-14).

Again, to understand Paul's use of the word here as forbidding women to lead or exercise authority, is to ignore Paul's actual practice, as attested throughout his letters, of accepting, supporting and commending women who did so.

Not at all. These women were leaders in their congregations for sure, but their leadership was within the confines of what was authorized and approved by God: leadership of younger women and children being brought up in proper submission to God and the men in the congregation.

 

[Paidiske]

I have been doing much research on this phrase, and there are some commentators who agree with you,

So you see that there is more than one possible way to understand this verse.

But looking back to 1 Tim 2:11-12, we can put this issue to rest.

Clearly not, since it has not actually put the issue to rest.

One of the stated qualifications for an elder is that he be able to teach the Word of God well (1 Tim 3:2), but women are not authorized to teach.

And yet women taught, and Paul commended women who taught!

And the reason for this is given here (that you have not addressed, but completely skipped over) that woman was created second and sinned first.

I skipped over it because if we establish that in fact, Paul did not absolutely prohibit women from teaching or leadership, the reason he gives in this instance becomes irrelevant for establishing an absolute prohibition now.

The qualifications for an Apostle were given in Acts 1. And there were only 2 men (and no women) found who met those qualifications. Paul met these qualifications by spending three years in the Arabia and Damascus taking instruction directly from God (Gal 1:12, 17-18).

And yet I just gave you a list of places where Scripture calls others apostles. What do you make of that?

No, it is not just domineering that is being forbidden (although, as you say, that is forbidden to both men and women), but any exercise of authority over men.

That's not established by this verse.

That said, I think there is some work to be done about how we understand authority exercised in ministry. Often people say that women shouldn't exercise authority "over" men; and yet I would say that that is not how the authority of ministry operates.

The authority of church leader is not personal authority. It is an expression of the authority of the whole church, which has discerned the necessary gifts and calling in this individual to carry out this role for the good of the whole body. In that sense, it is not the authority of a woman over a group of people, but the authority of the church; and that authority applies equally to all, men and women, to those who listen and those who take up the tasks of teaching, preaching and leading. As a priest, I submit myself to that authority, and so I claim no personal authority over the men (or indeed anyone) in the congregation. The authority over them rests with the church (the people of the Spirit), and with the Lord, and I am only its instrument, to the best of my capacity.

Women are to be submissive to men in the home, and in the Church.

Well, this thread is about the church, but I'd argue that submission in the home is meant to be mutual, as in Ephesians 5:21, not one-sided.

These women were leaders in their congregations for sure, but their leadership was within the confines of what was authorized and approved by God: leadership of younger women and children being brought up in proper submission to God and the men in the congregation.

This is amusingly out of keeping with what we actually know about very early worship practices. For example, the word Paul uses to describe Phoebe (prostatis) is exactly the same word that Justin Martyr uses to describe the person who presides over worship.

 

[Strong in Him]

But it is not pointing to faithful monogamy, although that is certainly part of the requirement. It is pointing to a person who is the HUSBAND of one WIFE, not the wife of but one husband.

I don't think women could have more than one husband in those days, so it wasn't an issue.

The fact that groups of people (no matter how large or how long ago) believe a falsehood does not make it truth. It is God’s Word that is important here, not people’s thoughts about it. And since God, speaking through the pen of Paul, commanded that women are not to have authority over men, women are not authorized to hold the office of elder.

Clearly he didn't, or there would not be so much discussion about it.
Nor would he be contradicting himself by calling women today.

You can believe what you want, but if it violates clear Biblical instruction, it is not Godly.

The thing is that this is not clear, Biblical instruction.
But if you take it as such, then I hope you are consistent and regard the whole passage in this way.

2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

So an overseer HAS to be married? Strange that God would insist on that when neither Jesus nor Paul were.
Has your church ever said that someone cannot be an elder/ordained because they lack one of these qualities?
According to you it is a Godly instruction that elders should be hospitable, gentle, temperate etc.

4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him,

It's a Godly instruction that an elder should have a family?
What happens if he marries and then finds out that he/his wife cannot have children?

5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

So if he does not have children, or does but cannot stop them from rebelling/joining a cult/becoming atheists, he is not fit to take care of the church?

6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.

How recent is recent? Why does Paul give this, apparent, Godly instruction but not define what he means?

He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

Supposing he doesn't have a good reputation with outsiders - whatever that means?

 

[3 Resurrections]

The qualifications for an Apostle were given in Acts 1. And there were only 2 men (and no women) found who met those qualifications. Paul met these qualifications by spending three years in the Arabia and Damascus taking instruction directly from God (Gal 1:12, 17-18).

There is a difference put between the "very chiefest Apostles", as Paul referred to them in 2 Cor. 11:5, and regular apostles of Christ, among whom were many women. When Paul listed who was able to meet the risen Christ, he listed all these "chiefest Apostles" first, then mentions that Christ "was seen of ALL the apostles" (1 Cor. 15:5-7).

The signs that one was an apostle ( i.e., a "sent one") was to perform "signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds", as listed in 2 Corinthians 12:12. One of those "signs" was the gift of speaking in tongues in those days (1 Cor. 14:22). This sign-gift of speaking in tongues and prophesying, according to the prophet Joel, was a gift that was going to be poured out on all flesh in those last days: upon God's servants AND HANDMAIDS - upon sons AND DAUGHTERS (Joel 2:28-29).

Therefore, since the marks of a regular apostle included being able to perform signs, and since speaking in tongues was also a sign, and since women were performing that sign of an apostle in those days, these women were considered to be apostles, though not among "the very chiefest Apostles".

I don't think women could have more than one husband in those days, so it wasn't an issue.

Exactly so. There was no need to give a requirement for married women elders (presbuteras) to have only one husband, since this was a non-event. But with married men to be qualified as an elder (presbuteros), polygamy was a rather common occurrence, so this explains why Paul had to mention having only one wife as a requirement for men becoming an elder.

That said, I think there is some work to be done about how we understand authority exercised in ministry. Often people say that women shouldn't exercise authority "over" men; and yet I would say that that is not how the authority of ministry operates.

The authority of church leader is not personal authority. It is an expression of the authority of the whole church, which has discerned the necessary gifts and calling in this individual to carry out this role for the good of the whole body. In that sense, it is not the authority of a woman over a group of people, but the authority of the church; and that authority applies equally to all, men and women, to those who listen and those who take up the tasks of teaching, preaching and leading. As a priest, I submit myself to that authority, and so I claim no personal authority over the men (or indeed anyone) in the congregation. The authority over them rests with the church (the people of the Spirit), and with the Lord, and I am only its instrument, to the best of my capacity.

Yes, indeed.