criteria for receiving aid

[Leslie]

"No widow may be put on the list of widows (to receive churchaid) unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,[a] 10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. " 1 Tim 5:9

When the pastor mentioned this verse (as a hard and fast rule), I thought, "Whoa--what about the widow who had extenuating circumstances that prohibited her from serving in a way the elders would recognize?" Maybe she suffered from mood issues, was the victim of spousal abuse, had to earn the family living, had chronic fatigue . . . ." The only service he mentioned qualifying was chruch service (that church elders witness). This overlooks the informal and less visible ministry she might do regularly, in or out of the church that the elders weren't privy to. A literal interpretation of this might encourage the display of one's service, and certainly the letting our right hands know what our left hands are doing. What for the woman who is conscience bound not to join but required to attend out of deference to husband (I don't disguise myself well, do I?)?

What does anyone else think? I'm thinking, I'm no where near 60, but maybe I'm glad to live in a blue state!

One way to get around these cases that the text seems to overlook is to view it as not normative--not for all churches, for all times, or to allow for discretion in the application of the verse. But even with that, the giving of alms will be subject to the impressions and biases of the elders (in an elder based church). (What if they misjudged the widow?)

Any thoughts?

[SpinningHead]

Ok...don't even get me stahted (please read in your best New Englandah accent ;) )

This is a perfect example of how a verse is taken out of context...the entire chapter needs to be read including any study guides:

My study guide says:
5:9 The church in Ephesus seems to have maintained a 'list of widows' supported by the church. While there is no evidence of an order of widows comparable to that of the overseers, it appears that those on the list were expected to devotre themselves to prayer (v5) & good deeds (v10).
5:10 washing the feet of the saints. A menial task, but necessary in NT times b/c of dusty roads and the wearing of sandals. (see Jn 13:14). saints. See notes on Ro 1:7, Eph 1:1


I believe that a lot of factors are to be considered here:
#1) Circumstances change w/ social customs. Given Bible times, the social status of women were completely different of those we have here in America. I don't believe any person can throw that verse out there w/out taking this point into consideration (and it requires some reseach I might add!)
#2) the then government did not provide SS & other retirement benefits
#3) do we know the life span of people at that time vs. today's times?
#4) what were the customs of the families at that time?
#5) Is this even being talked about b/c your church has a "list of widows" (what exactly does that mean??) and does it service widows?
#6) Is this verse being used to manipulate women in the congregation??
#7) In general, we do not throw our widows out on the street...I believe that did happen in that culture.
#8) If you know (in your head and in your heart) that you're doing all that you can and are capable of w/ the resources & information given you on any given day...
Honey, then to heck w/ anyone else! You're good with God and yourself...noboby but nobody else matters!

Now, granted...this is an American take on the subject and I'm fully aware of the differences of other cultures. Point is, I believe Timothy was talking to that culture at that time on a matter of conduct specific to his experience. I believe the essense of what he was saying and that attitude of how that is applied to our lives and church culture is the heart of it and not the legalistic rules of it. Take care of those widows in need (and don't be nieve & let yourself be taken advantage of by someone looking for a free ride) and look for the fruits of their hearts.

Okay...10:00 on a Sunday night. Someone's bright idea was to make tomorrow morning a Monday! :(

[Jerry]

Dear Leslie,,
This "Pastor" is a rottin no good "Anti-Christ",,,,,,,,,,Well you asked "Any thoughts"....Truely we are whitnessing the "Famine" of the end times,the "Famine" not for bread but for Gods Word.This Church is a "Pestilance"
Love Jerry

[jjc9497]

Take care of those widows in need (and don't be nieve & let yourself be taken advantage of by someone looking for a free ride) and look for the fruits of their hearts.

:(


My understanding of this verse is similar. We are to care for the deserving poor, those who are poor through no fault of their own. Those who are poor because they refuse to work and are capable of working do not need to be cared for by the church. The church cannot help ALL the poor, so we need to be careful with the resources we have and care for those who have no way to help themselves.

Just my opinion.

[Carmen]

I agree with jjc.

That is why I am against the word-for-word interpretation of Scripture. I already have serious doubts about the fallibility of the letters because if I interpreted them literally, as the pastor that SA'd me wanted me to, I'd still be there in bondage to him. Even if they are taken in context, I just don't think that some passages can or should be applied to today.

[SpinningHead]

I agree with jjc.

That is why I am against the word-for-word interpretation of Scripture. I already have serious doubts about the fallibility of the letters because if I interpreted them literally, as the pastor that SA'd me wanted me to, I'd still be there in bondage to him. Even if they are taken in context, I just don't think that some passages can or should be applied to today.

Actually, I have no problem taking the word-for-word approach when everything and I do mean everything is taking into consideration. If only a limited verse is being bashed to death w/out the full knowledge, that's when it becomes legalism.