Woman who preaches in Church

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi Paidiske. Ok so women were also diciples. But it still doesn't explain why the predominance of men. Was there anything to why God primarily used men as prophets and Jesus used men as disciples including the writing of the gospels and Pauls letters to the early church.

Was there some male domination going on. Or was there a reason why males were chosen for these roles.

In the context of this thread, I don't think the predominance of men in ministry is a striking issue. Rather, it's the issue of whether or not women should be pastors, elders, prophets, at all, ever...............................................

For some reason, we have Christians who insist that women are essentially side-baggage in the Church and have little to no role to play within it. I think we can all realize this is patently wrong-headed.

 

[stevevw]

Amongst those whose names are recorded. Although there were many women mentioned as well. Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha of Bethany, Salome, Joanna, Susanna... And many women as prophets in both testaments.

I don't think there was necessarily a predominance of men at all. And at certain times - such as at the foot of the cross - it was the women who were there, not the men.

For example the 12 disciples who were of the inner circle of Christ, the ones at the last supper. There are many occassions where the disciples either as 12 or in smaller groups were included in the important events of Christ. For example Peter, James and John seemed to be included in certain events and were said to be part of Christs inner circle.

Mark 9:2-3
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them.
Luke 8:51
And when he came to the house, he allowed no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child.
Matthew 26:36-38
Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, "Sit here, while I go over there and pray." And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me."

Peter, James and John become the foundation of the church. It seems Christ was preparing the diciples for a particular role after He was gone. At least as far as the transition from Christ ministry on earth and the setting up of the early church. The other diciples also played an important role and so did Paul.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For example the 12 disciples who were of the inner circle of Christ, the ones at the last supper. There are many occassions where the disciples either as 12 or in smaller groups were included in the important events of Christ. For example Peter, James and John seemed to be included in certain events and were said to be part of Christs inner circle.

Mark 9:2-3
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them.
Luke 8:51
And when he came to the house, he allowed no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child.
Matthew 26:36-38
Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, "Sit here, while I go over there and pray." And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me."

Peter, James and John become the foundation of the church. It seems Christ was preparing the diciples for a particular role after He was gone. At least as far as the transition from Christ ministry on earth and the setting up of the early church. The other diciples also played an important role and so did Paul.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Sure. There was in implied hierarchy set by Jesus among His disciples, but I don't think that anything either in the New Testament or in what we know of 1st century Christian faith in various churches from Jerusalem over to Rome would utterly prohibit women being in influential leadership positions, at least some of the time.

To expect men to be at the tippy tippy top of the hierarchy in the Church isn't the issue here. .... and "pastor" isn't the tippy tippy top position. So, I think women should be allowed to be pastors of churches if and when they are sincerely and authentically led by the Lord to do so and also qualify to do so.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Why did God use predominately males and not the 50/50 equal split as progressives demand.

Perhaps the disciples were male because God wanted the message spread and women would be disregarded due to the prevailing culture of the time...as they still apparently are in some quarters 2,000 years later.

 

[stevevw]

In the context of this thread, I don't think the predominance of men in ministry is a striking issue. Rather, it's the issue of whether or not women should be pastors, elders, prophets, at all, ever...............................................

But I don't think we can determine that unless we also understand what role men played and why men. This is contrasted against modern day ideas of equality or rather equity that the predominance of males should be regarded as something oppressive and wrong. That needs to be corrected to a more equitable ratio to be truely just and moral.

To understanding why predominately men were used would help because obviously God is not oppressive or denying womens rights if He is a just God. So there is a good reason to be found as to why men were chosen which may be foundational in how we should order ourselves.

Therefore God did not have any prohibition about women not being disciples and setting up the early church based on any sex or gender descrimination. Rather it was for a specific reason that men were chosen rather than women.

In that sense determining whether women should be pastors, elders or prophets is moot because we know that they are equal under Christ and denying or oppressing women is not why males were chosen for these particular roles.

For some reason, we have Christians who insist that women are essentially side-baggage in the Church and have little to no role to play within it. I think we can all realize this is patently wrong-headed.

Yes and this happens when a truth is generalised and taken to the extreme ie because men were predominant in the bible they must rule everything across the board. Rather than it perhaps being about specific roles or aspects of a role such as in leadership. Males and females can both have leadership qualitoes but sometimes there are specific leadership qualities that males and females are each better at.

But then we can also go the other way and deny there's any difference which I think also undermines Gods order. So its a balance of recognising individual and sex/gender differences without denying each.

I remember Peterson talking about equality and when it comes to getting a job done or setting up something in the most efficent and stable way then sex, gender or race should not come into it. Its a matter of getting the best people to achieve the goal regardless of sex or gender and if that turns out to be more males or females then it doesn't matter so long as the best candidates are used. Anything less and your undermining the project.

 

[RamiC]

Why did God use predominately males and not the 50/50 equal split as progressives demand. They would even go as far as saying that God oppressive to women. But is that the case or was there some other reason.

I am exclusively interested in the question of can any specific woman be called by the Lord for a pastoral role, or is it impossible. Thus if Mary was the first to see the risen Christ, and she told the apostles she had seen Him, as we know was the case, is a relevant point. As is the matter of who are the women Paul refers to in Timothy, and why they should they keep silent.

Nothing that I see in the Bible justifies demanding an equal 50/50 split.

 

[stevevw]

Perhaps the disciples were male God wanted the message spread and women would be disregarded due to the prevailing culture of the time...as they still apparently are in some quarters 2,000 years later.

Thats the paradox. Despite the predominance of men the gospel was open to all and the status that Christs message gave was that all were equal. In fact it was these truths that changed the Greco Roman worldview that women were 2nd class citizens just above slaves. Christainity made women equal and having rights similar to males. Treating marriage as sacred and not allowing women as mistresses.

So the message had the opposite effect of making men of higher worth in the end and thats why I say the fact that males were predominant was not because of deminishing women but for a specific purpose in relation perhaps to the setting up of Christs church intially as it was frought with dangers and conflicts and needed strong authority which I think males may be better at in some cases.

 

[stevevw]

Sure. There was in implied hierarchy set by Jesus among His disciples, but I don't think that anything either in the New Testament or in what we know of 1st century Christian faith in various churches from Jerusalem over to Rome would utterly prohibit women being in influential leadership positions, at least some of the time.

I agree and I am not saying that women were denied this or could not fullfill this role. Only that for a particular reason men were more dominant. Maybe because the early church needed greater authority and in some situations especially in trying times against great forces males may have been more suitable.

But that doesn't mean that women were not involved in leadership roles in other ways or that women were denied authority roles. Just that for specific reasons men were more suitable.

Otherwise it would appear that males were chosen for personal reasons because Christ just liked males or put his friends before suitability to the role. So we have to assume there was a specific reason why men were chosen for these particular roles and not women. It will be the same for why women were chosen for particular roles. Otherwise I don't think it matters.

To expect men to be at the tippy tippy top of the hierarchy in the Church isn't the issue here. .... and "pastor" isn't the tippy tippy top position. So, I think women should be allowed to be pastors of churches if and when they are sincerely and authentically led by the Lord to do so and also qualify to do so.

I agree and I am not even sure about religious structuring as it can be influenced by human ideas and politics. It can be no different to the local footy club committee where theres all sorts of power plays going on and the treasurers having it off with the chairmans wife lol.

It doesn't matter who brings a person to God or how people are taught or how Gods word is expressed so long as it is Gods word and as you said sincere and the truth. God works in many ways and its often the least expected people who God works through.

 

[RamiC]

God works in many ways and its often the least expected people who God works through.

This is so true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But I don't think we can determine that unless we also understand what role men played and why men. This is contrasted against modern day ideas of equality or rather equity that the predominance of males should be regarded as something oppressive and wrong. That needs to be corrected to a more equitable ratio to be truely just and moral.

To understanding why predominately men were used would help because obviously God is not oppressive or denying womens rights if He is a just God. So there is a good reason to be found as to why men were chosen which may be foundational in how we should order ourselves.

Therefore God did not have any prohibition about women not being disciples and setting up the early church based on any sex or gender descrimination. Rather it was for a specific reason that men were chosen rather than women.

In that sense determining whether women should be pastors, elders or prophets is moot because we know that they are equal under Christ and denying or oppressing women is not why males were chosen for these particular roles.

These are, of course, reasonable inquiries to pursue within historical Ecclesiology, and I agree with you that we can't clearly determine aspects of the modern issues involved in women's participation in ministry. A further twist, however, is that the New Testament isn't a comprehensive database of content by which to discern every tiny nuance that exists within these social issues. It's obvious the Lord has left some things up to us to administer within the Church and to decide upon.

Yes and this happens when a truth is generalised and taken to the extreme ie because men were predominant in the bible they must rule everything across the board. Rather than it perhaps being about specific roles or aspects of a role such as in leadership. Males and females can both have leadership qualitoes but sometimes there are specific leadership qualities that males and females are each better at.

Right. But I don't think we have the historical data by which to qualify all of this to the level either traditionally claimed or as is currently demanded.

But then we can also go the other way and deny there's any difference which I think also undermines Gods order. So its a balance of recognising individual and sex/gender differences without denying each.

And I for one am not averring for some sort of 'equality' of the sexes without differentiating what I think is more or less established in nature. On this point, I don't consider myself Progressive, even IF some of my personal interpretations might seem to simulate what some of the Left think. It's just one of the downsides of being a Christian Philosopher.

I remember Peterson talking about equality and when it comes to getting a job done or setting up something in the most efficent and stable way then sex, gender or race should not come into it. Its a matter of getting the best people to achieve the goal regardless of sex or gender and if that turns out to be more males or females then it doesn't matter so long as the best candidates are used. Anything less and your undermining the project.

Yes, the point is: who has God made effective in whichever ministry has a need?

 

[Rose_bud]

Thats the paradox. Despite the predominance of men the gospel was open to all and the status that Christs message gave was that all were equal. In fact it was these truths that changed the Greco Roman worldview that women were 2nd class citizens just above slaves. Christainity made women equal and having rights similar to males. Treating marriage as sacred and not allowing women as mistresses.

Agree, they were counter-cultural, which came with challenges, which Paul in his epistles addresses with the wisdom required for the situation.

So the message had the opposite effect of making men of higher worth in the end and thats why I say the fact that males were predominant was not because of deminishing women but for a specific purpose in relation perhaps to the setting up of Christs church intially as it was frought with dangers and conflicts and needed strong authority which I think males may be better at in some cases.

This may not be entirely true, rather than assume men are inherently more suited for authority, we should recognize that courage, conviction, and commitment to the message are essential qualities for leadership, which they received from God. It wasn't soley about gender but the willingness to serve and face the challenges because of the message. It wasn't natural or inherent strength or wisdom that underscored the growth of the Church. If it was the church would be a man-made Institute.

Also the message was presented to Jews first, who would have recognized the parallel to the origins of the nation of Israel. ie, the Church was based on the Jewish foundation of the 12 sons of Israel, (although this was "13", Joseph given a double portion - Ephraim and Manasseh, and later Levi being God's portion).

All people are now God's portion.
As the Church grew and discovered how God was including Gentiles, church "structure" changed to accommodate all ethnicities that believed in Him.

 

[Strong in Him]

Peter pronounced Sapphira’s death before she died, and the coincidental timing and place of their deaths indicate that this was indeed God’s judgment. Whether God chose to do it through heart attack or any other way, I don't know.

The text does not say that God killed them.
If you think he did, because of their disobedience, the fact that female preachers/clergy are not regularly dropping dead in the pulpit suggests that either God does not regard them as disobedient or that he does not kill those who sin.

Right away, in the church’s infancy, God made it plain that hypocrisy and dissimulation were not going to be tolerated, and His judgment of Ananias and Sapphira helped guard the church against future pretense.

That may be the case - yet further on in the NT we see Paul reprimanding the Corinthians for sexual sin and impurity and Paul calling Peter a hypocrite. Peter, Paul and John taught against false teachers who were spreading their doctrines without dropping dead on the spot. Paul taught that the church was responsible for discipline and if a believer did not accept it, they were to be treated as a Gentile. One disciple was "handed over to Satan" for a while - not killed on the spot.
If God had been going to punish like that, he would not have sent Jesus.

God laid the bodies of Ananias and Sapphira in the path of every hypocrite who would seek to enter the church.

Their sin was not hypocrisy.
Peter was called a hypocrite.

God is not calling any woman to preach, as that would go against His Word.

The fact that he DOES call us to preach shows that he has not forbidden it in his word.
But of course it's easier for some to point the finger at women and label them sinners, than admitting that their interpretation of Scripture may be wrong.

So it is not God calling them, but it is their own desire to preach,

I had no desire to preach.
It just became clear to me, after a while, that I was being asked to do just that.

1 Timothy 2:12: “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” This command comes in a section of 1 Timothy which teaches about the functioning of a local church.

This sentence comes in a letter addressed to a friend, rather than in one that was written to a church.
Paul says that HE does not permit A woman - not that God commands all women.

Some people believe when the apostle Paul wrote that a woman should not “teach or exercise authority over a man,” he was conforming to a unique situation in the city of Ephesus or to the cultural value system of the time, but that is not the case.

In your opinion; many disagree.

Notice in the next verse Paul refers back to God’s original design for man and woman: “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). This proves God wants His created design of male leadership and female submission in the family to extend into the functioning of the church.

a) Being created second doesn't mean, or show, inferiority; humans were created after animals.
b) it doesn't prove anything. Adam and Eve were husband and wife; not Pastor and church member.

When God created Adam and Eve, He designed a productive and perfect balance between the nurturing leadership of a man and the supportive following of a woman in marriage.

Marriage is not the same as church leadership.

When Adam and Eve sinned, God’s perfect plan was perverted by the depravity in the hearts of men and women. Adam sinned by stepping out from under God’s authority when he ate the divinely forbidden fruit, and Eve chose to reject the authority of both Adam and the Lord.

Not quite.
Eve was deceived. If you read Genesis 2 you will see that Eve was created after Adam had been given a command from God. There is no evidence that God repeated it again to her, so Adam probably told her. If you read Genesis 3:3 and then compare it with Genesis 2:17, Eve did not repeat this command correctly; suggesting that either she had not been listening or hadn't understood what Adam said.
This ties in with the beginning of these verses; "let the women learn" - they were not allowed to - and they should learn in silence so that they hear and understand what they are to do.
Adam heard the command directly from God and deliberately disobeyed; sin came into the world through Adam, Romans 5:12-21.

From that time on, one of the expressions of sin in women would be the tendency to break out of God’s intended supporting and following role.

Not at all.
In NT times especially, women had no rights and were merely the property of men. Nut God still chose some to lead (Deborah; judge over all the land), teach (Priscilla), prophesy (Miriam, Deborah Huldah, Philip's daughters), become the first witness to the resurrection (Mary Magdalen), be a deacon (Phoebe) and so on.
Women did not "break out", God called them.

Female 'pastors' are in a rebellion to God. Repent.

I'm not ordained and have nothing to repent of.

 

[stevevw]

These are, of course, reasonable inquiries to pursue within historical Ecclesiology, and I agree with you that we can't clearly determine aspects of the modern issues involved in women's participation in ministry. A further twist, however, is that the New Testament isn't a comprehensive database of content by which to discern every tiny nuance that exists within these social issues. It's obvious the Lord has left some things up to us to administer within the Church and to decide upon.

Yeah I think as rational and moral beings we are able to decern Gods truth. A lot of the time its really common sense and if everything is working for good and aligns with Gods truth then all we can do is go with that. Leave the rest up to God.

Right. But I don't think we have the historical data by which to qualify all of this to the level either traditionally claimed or as is currently demanded.

Yes thats the unknown question as to what extent. But I do think there is some truth to the specific roles such as the diciples and the forming of the early church being dominated by men tells us something about men and those roles. Otherwise why choose predominately men.

We can also perhaps find scientific support as to how males are more suited to certain roles such as in positions of authority or in times of threat. Thats if these roles were to do with threat. I am only trying to summise why males dominated. For example males dominate brick laboring jobs because they are more suited and not because they deny women. Though there was a little of that simply because there were a lot of male testosterone lol.

So perhaps something like that but perthaps to do with the level of authority needed at that time and the persecution the church was under when it was first forming. Afterall all the diciples were persecuted and executed and so were many Christains. There needed to a strong leadership with authority and dicipline which males are mopre inclined to be suited for. Thats not saying that women are not suited for these roles.

And I for one am not averring for some sort of 'equality' of the sexes without differentiating what I think is more or less established in nature. On this point, I don't consider myself Progressive, even IF some of my personal interpretations might seem to simulate what some of the Left think. It's just one of the downsides of being a Christian Philosopher.

Like I said I really think its common sense and our natural intuition that tells us when it meets the pub test. We are rational and moral beings and can know Gods truth. We are able to reason and when everything aligns with Gods word and reality then thats all we can do. I really think both sides want the same thing but have different ideas about how that is achieved.

Yes, the point is: who has God made effective in whichever ministry has a need?

I have been in business and believe me you want the best possible workers to get the job done regardless of their identity. And its the same for society in general. People want the best candidates in politics, medicine or our police and rescue workers and so long as they can do the job well then it doesn't matter what race, sex or gender they are.

But sometimes this ends up where certain people are naturally better at certain things and the cream rises to the top so to speak. As mentioned earlier males do well at laboring jobs. Women tend to be better at social caring jobs and thus dominate the industries. In rugby league in Australia Islander people are the best natural players and are now dominating the league. Tall people dominate basket ball ect.

 

[Truth7t7]

I think women should be allowed to be pastors of churches

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

1 Samuel 15:23KJV
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

1 Samuel 15:23KJV
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Well then, don't be a novice, Truth7t7.

And one more thing: DON'T DO THAT AGAIN!!!!! If you do, I will report you for implying that I'm a mere novice and "not a Christian."

I've about had enough of some of the fundamentalist rhetoric a few of you constantly employ and heap upon other Christians like myself.

And yes, I'll say it again: I think women should be allowed to be pastors of churches. It's not rebellion to say so.

 

[RamiC]

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

1 Samuel 15:23KJV
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

"Prominent scholars who take a men-only position agree that the qualifications stated in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 do not in themselves exclude women from being church elders. Their men-only position is therefore derived from their reading of other passages of Scripture – especially, a controversial translation and interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12, though that verse does not mention elders." -Link Here -

You seem to have relied entirely on the KJV because it uses male pronouns as default, then selected an out of context condemnation of a specific person in order to attempt to present any dispute of your perspective as on a par with witchcraft. Now, as the article I have linked to says, 1 Timothy 2:12 is a relevant verse regarding the issue at hand, but the historic use of "man/he" in the english language is not.

 

[Paidiske]

But I don't think we can determine that unless we also understand what role men played and why men.

But we could only ever speculate about that.

I mean, why men? We might as well ask, why Peter and not Bartholomew? Why John and not Thomas?

If I had to guess - and it's only a guess - it's that taking women along as part of the very intimate inner circle, who were not married to the men in that group, and who were (perhaps) married to other men, would have been socially challenging. Especially since Jesus himself was unmarried. I mean, yes, we know there were women who travelled with Jesus and supported him, but given the mores of the day, I imagine there were some proprieties being observed. It's notable that Mary sitting at Jesus' feet was in her own home, not on the road travelling, for example. (Of all the accusations made of Jesus, I don't recall any accusations of impropriety with women. And they would have made those accusations if he'd given them the slightest excuse!).

Yes, the point is: who has God made effective in whichever ministry has a need?

My long observation of a good many men and women in ministry has led me to this conclusion. We all have different gifts and strengths, and in general, there are not clear trends that make men in ministry better at one sort of task, and women at another, or anything like that. All of us have to be generalists with a range of competencies, anyway; there are very few clergy working in highly specialised ministries.

What I do observe, though, is that there are, pastorally at least, times when for the person needing care, the sex of the pastor matters. With men it's often around physical disability; they are already struggling with what it means to "be a man;" it's not a time they want to talk to a woman. With women it's often around a history of abuse; they are already struggling with feeling safe; it's not a time they want to talk to a man. (Yes, I am generalising, but those are clear trends I've seen). So it is helpful to have both men and women available so that people can approach the person they feel better able to relate to at that time.

 

[Truth7t7]

the sex of the pastor matters.

I Agree, Bishops are to be married men as has been shown several times, the holy Bible explicitly teaches Bishops and Deacons are to be married men 1 Timothy 3:1-13

 

[Paidiske]

I Agree, ...

You completely missed my point.

And I disagree; you have not shown what you claim to have shown. The Scriptures you refer to do not demonstrate your claim.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

I find it interesting that you quote a married couple here, both of them lied to the church, both had the same consequence, there is no gender difference mentioned.

I did not mention Ananias and Sapphira to point to male pastors only, but to remind Christians that sin still has horrible consequences.

Why do I say it? Because this teaching you barely find in churches today. Let's be honest, there is a lack of fear of God in the church today, at least in the western world.

The church is weak today. Christians fear men more than God. Sin and world entered many churches. We have teachings of cheap grace where Christians respond to sin by 'I am under grace, not under law, I can do what I want' and yes I heard Christians say that, There is barely any teachings of sin, hell, God's coming wrath and judgement. All about love love and love but do not mention God's wrath, or hell. Cheap grace.

The church (not every church ofc) become what the unfaithful Israel was in OT. Israel sinned in OT so much that God said to them that He will no longer hear their prayers, and He will not have mercy. This of course does not get preached today. God describes sin as filthy as human excrement (Zechariah 3), as filthy as woman's menstruation blood (Isaiah) and calls His unfaithful people a w***e. When was the last time, if ever, you heard a sermon on that? Because OT is full of it, but that does not get preached today only that God loves you, God has a plan for you. But nothing about God's judgement.

John, apostle of love, he himself wrote a lot about God's judgement. But that does not fly in church today. But God's 'judgement begins at the house of God' (1 Peter 4:17). We were purchased no by gold or silver but by the precious blood of Christ. 1 Cor 3:12-15 Every man's work will be made manifest: for the day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will try every man's work, of what sort ...But some today, they store treasures made of paper and wood, which when put through fire, will burn.