• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Woman who preaches in Church

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,799
20,098
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,701,962.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
You keep making assumptions that any talk of males being suitable for some roles means banning or overlooking women. Nowhere have I said that and in fact have kept pointing out this is not about overlooking or banning women.
Maybe because in my experience that's exactly what happens; women are banned or overlooked. Whether you like it or not, that is how this line of thinking plays out in real women's lives.
It may have considering it was the most threating time of the church and that many would have been killed in the process. Jesus did say "Behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves".
But this argument only makes any sense if you think they were trying to avoid martyrdom. But men and women both accepted the risks, and paid the price.
But if all this is irrelevant than we are still stuck with why there was a dominance of men.
And you know what? We can speculate till the end of the day, and it doesn't matter. If we agree that there were some women in various roles in the early church, and that these roles are open to called and qualified women today, then those speculations are just irrelevant.
But if thats the case should we not condemn them as culture can often be biased based on belief rather than what is fair and just.
The early church got many things right, and (as we can see even from the epistles), many things wrong. I don't feel the need to condemn them, just learn what we can and focus on being faithful in what we are called to do now.
Isn't that the point of modern objections today that the church is dominated by males.
No, the point of modern objections today is to highlight the barriers women face to having their vocations recognised and affirmed by the church. Barriers which are well and truly on display in threads such as these.

Whatever arguments you want to make about physical threats in the early church, they provide no "good reason" for preventing women from participating today.
 
Upvote 0

Truth7t7

Newbie
Dec 20, 2012
6,519
1,863
✟161,685.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you're not talking about women in ministry and leadership roles, why are you posting in a thread about women preaching?
Do you believe a practicing married female lesbian, married to another practicing female lesbian, should this practicing female lesbian be allowed to be ordained and preach and teach behind the pulpit in a church service/meeting?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ivan Hlavanda

Well-Known Member
Mar 27, 2020
1,773
1,148
33
York
✟149,781.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The bottom line is...the warning Paul is giving in 1 Timothy 2:14 where he says the reasoning for why women should not teach or exercise authority is because Eve was deceived by the devil in the garden. So, this rule is to protect us because of the influence women can have over men when they take the lead and the enemy is involved. 1 John 5:3 says that His commandments are not burdensome, they are for our protection instead. Do not lean on your own understanding, or to the patterns of the world, or what your deceiving heart may be saying people. Trust in God's wisdom instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truth7t7
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,799
20,098
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,701,962.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe a practicing married female lesbian, married to another practicing female lesbian, should this practicing female lesbian be allowed to be ordained and preach and teach behind the pulpit in a church service/meeting?
I believe this is irrelevant to a thread about women preaching. Questions of character and fitness for office are separate from questions of gender.
 
Upvote 0

Rose_bud

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...
Apr 9, 2010
1,138
479
South Africa
✟78,000.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Lets keep the main thing the main thing. We all (men and women) are prone to deception and have rebelled against a holy God. That's why only Jesus Christ can save us. To Him (not husband or wife) belongs the glory, praise, and honor. His death, burial, and resurrection is the message and gift we're called to share.

Some may believe that only men should preach or hold leadership roles, but the Bible has considerable evidence to the contrary. The Bible shows us examples of women like Deborah, Esther, and Phoebe amongst others, who played significant roles in leading and proclaiming Gods message.

Do not restrict the Gospel message by limiting who can share it. When we restrict women in the church, we not only go against the biblical examples of women leaders, but we also subtly silence their voices and restrict the Gospel's reach. Instead, through the Spirit recognize and empower all believers (men and women) who have been gifted and called by God to preach, teach, and lead. By doing this, we will witness the full potential of the body of Christ to proclaim the Gospel and bring glory to Him.

Therefore, when cultural or traditional interpretations of Scripture restrict this proclamation it should be re-examined in light of the broader context of Scripture. The church is a representation of the body of Christ with many members. Our roles as men and women within this body should be guided by the gifts God has given. As we serve one another, we demonstrate our love of Him. His gifts equip and encourage His body, ultimately bringing glory to His name.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
30,692
9,586
NW England
✟1,271,528.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The bottom line is...the warning Paul is giving in 1 Timothy 2:14 where he says the reasoning for why women should not teach or exercise authority is because Eve was deceived by the devil in the garden.
That is a reason why women should be allowed to learn (v11) - so that they are not deceived.
So, this rule is to protect us because of the influence women can have over men when they take the lead and the enemy is involved.
So Deborah wasn't able to lead Israel for 40 years?

If this were a rule, then men should be banned from leading too, because of Adam.
Who wants a leader who knows what God says, and wants, but does the opposite?
1 John 5:3 says that His commandments are not burdensome, they are for our protection instead.
This is not God's command.
Do not lean on your own understanding, or to the patterns of the world, or what your deceiving heart may be saying people.
If women who offer for ordination have "deceiving hearts", then either men, or the Lord, or both should be able to correct them. But they don't.
Many men support, pray with and train women who offer for this ministry. Many men have voted that women should be allowed to test a call from God to this work.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,828
1,697
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,129.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Maybe because in my experience that's exactly what happens; women are banned or overlooked. Whether you like it or not, that is how this line of thinking plays out in real women's lives.
So are you saying we should not have this line of thinking at all. It should not be a consideration. Or are you saying it should be a consideration but we must be careful not to allow this to turn into denying women. I think thats a better balance because if we don't take this into consideration then we run the risk of causing another kind of injustice and denial.

Also sometimes the consideration that men are more suitable for some situation sometimes does mean banning women or men for that matter. Like in physical sports like boxing, we ban women and women ban men. Or we ban men from womens specialist groups. It maybe women only apply. This is for good reason and not due to denial of rights.
But this argument only makes any sense if you think they were trying to avoid martyrdom. But men and women both accepted the risks, and paid the price.
Actuallys its more about what happened before they were martyred. Martyrdom was the end result of a life of threat and conflict. They were martyred for the very same thing they were preaching from the time they went out into the world to spread the church.

Once again I am not saying that women were banned from this, or were incapable of doing this. Only that when all is said and done this type of life was more suitable for men for obvious reasons. Even if it was not physical threat. Often it was intimidation and threats probably from males or even Pharisees and leaders wanting to rid the two of Christainity as it was persecuted in the first couple of centuries.
And you know what? We can speculate till the end of the day, and it doesn't matter. If we agree that there were some women in various roles in the early church, and that these roles are open to called and qualified women today, then those speculations are just irrelevant.
Actually they are very relevant. Its not so much that we can agree that there were some women who were in that position but a matter of how far the church goes with that. If we use the early church then yes maybe 1 or 2% were women.

But modern day ideology demands 50/50. So speculating about exactly what the dominance of men in the early church represented today is the whole point of the exercise really.
The early church got many things right, and (as we can see even from the epistles), many things wrong. I don't feel the need to condemn them, just learn what we can and focus on being faithful in what we are called to do now.
Hum that seems a little ambigious. Its not really addressing the issue. Leaving it up in the air will only create more speculation and division as its allowing personal opinion rather than church doctrine to guide the church.
No, the point of modern objections today is to highlight the barriers women face to having their vocations recognised and affirmed by the church. Barriers which are well and truly on display in threads such as these.
OK I agree we should pull down these barriers and allow women a role in the church. But at the same time as I am trying to allude to there may be some roles that the church believes only males should fullfill for good reason and not because of denyng women. I have explained the examples including how males may have been more suited as leading the overall church.

Like the Pope and the highest Bishops under him primarily being males as this reflected how the church began and was setup. If the dominance of males was justified in the early church then why not today.
Whatever arguments you want to make about physical threats in the early church, they provide no "good reason" for preventing women from participating today.
Not just physical threats but I think one of authority in the world. As males are usually better at discipline and authority this may have been another reason. At the extremes when it counts it is males who are regarded as more authoritive and able to keep order.

I know this is going to be controversial.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,799
20,098
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,701,962.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So are you saying we should not have this line of thinking at all. It should not be a consideration. Or are you saying it should be a consideration but we must be careful not to allow this to turn into denying women.
I am saying it's unhelpful to drag it into topics where it's not relevant.
Actuallys its more about what happened before they were martyred. Martyrdom was the end result of a life of threat and conflict. They were martyred for the very same thing they were preaching from the time they went out into the world to spread the church.
My point stands. Your argument only makes sense if you think the women were trying to avoid, or the men were trying to protect the women from, threat and conflict. But we don't see that at all. We see both men and women facing up to threat and conflict; to the point of paying with their lives.
Actually they are very relevant.
It is not relevant to a thread discussing whether or not women can preach. Your argument makes no difference to whether or not women should be allowed to preach today.
Leaving it up in the air will only create more speculation and division as its allowing personal opinion rather than church doctrine to guide the church.
It's okay to say that there are certain things we don't know for sure, where people are able to have, and explore, different ideas. Especially if those different ideas are not determinative of our practices today.
But at the same time as I am trying to allude to there may be some roles that the church believes only males should fullfill for good reason and not because of denyng women.
Which roles, today, and what good reasons? If you want to make that kind of claim, put your cards on the table rather than dancing around it.
If the dominance of males was justified in the early church then why not today.
The question in any given instance is, is God calling this person to this ministry? It's got nothing to do with dominance of one group or another, or gender breakdown, or anything like that.
At the extremes when it counts it is males who are regarded as more authoritive and able to keep order.
The key words there are probably "regarded as." As in, it's a cultural stereotype, rather than reality.
 
Upvote 0

Truth7t7

Newbie
Dec 20, 2012
6,519
1,863
✟161,685.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I believe this is irrelevant to a thread about women preaching. Questions of character and fitness for office are separate from questions of gender.
Practicing Lesbian women behind pulpits is very much within the scope of the topic "Woman Who Preaches In Church", and is a world topic today, irrelevant "Hardly"

The Debate over Ordained Service by Homosexual Persons in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has been mired in debates about ordained service by non-celibate gay and lesbian persons since 1976.

Moravians in 13 states to ordain gay clergy
approved a proposal allowing the ordination of gay and lesbian people—whether single, married, or in covenanted relationships—and calling for the creation of a rite for same-sex covenants.

The Episcopal Church

LGBTQ+ in the Church

We have a legacy of inclusion, aspiring to tell and exemplify God’s love for every human being. Ordination and the offices of bishop, priest, and deacon are open to all without discrimination.

Do you believe a practicing married female lesbian, married to another practicing female lesbian, should this practicing female lesbian be allowed to be ordained and preach and teach behind the pulpit in a church service/meeting?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,799
20,098
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,701,962.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe a practicing married female lesbian, married to another practicing female lesbian, should this practicing female lesbian be allowed to be ordained and preach and teach behind the pulpit in a church service/meeting?
I believe that every church should have clear codes of conduct for their clergy and authorised leaders in various roles; that those codes of conduct should be in keeping with Scripture; and that people who do not abide by those codes of conduct should not be in those roles.

But again, this is a question of character and fitness (a question which applies to men as well as women; you could just as well ask about practising married gay men); it is not a question of gender. It is not relevant to whether women, in general, ought to be absolutely excluded from preaching, or allowed to be considered as candidates to take up preaching roles.
 
Upvote 0

Truth7t7

Newbie
Dec 20, 2012
6,519
1,863
✟161,685.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I believe that every church should have clear codes of conduct for their clergy and authorised leaders in various roles; that those codes of conduct should be in keeping with Scripture; and that people who do not abide by those codes of conduct should not be in those roles.
Do you believe that a practicing lesbian woman being a (Bishop/Pastor) in a church, behind a pulpit preaching and teaching, is in "Keeping With Scripture"?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,828
1,697
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,129.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I am saying it's unhelpful to drag it into topics where it's not relevant.
But its relevant, thats the point. Both aspects are relevant and if we forget one or the other we will end up with injustice.
My point stands. Your argument only makes sense if you think the women were trying to avoid, or the men were trying to protect the women from, threat and conflict. But we don't see that at all. We see both men and women facing up to threat and conflict; to the point of paying with their lives.
Ok but then how do we explain the vast dominance of males. If as you say that there is no difference or reason for women not being more represented because they could do the same then why were they not more represented. There is now no excuse.

All we can say is that this was not done because of oppression or denying women as Christ would not do that. So something about men was favoured. It is important because this may apply today. It doesn't mean women cannot do this but that men should dominate those roles.
It is not relevant to a thread discussing whether or not women can preach. Your argument makes no difference to whether or not women should be allowed to preach today.
It does in certain positions. As I said it may have been that a strong and authoritive voice was needed as the heads of churches to ensure the threats from outside did not undermine the church for which men were in more of a position to uphold especially in its early stages. This same principle may have been at the foundation of establishing Christs church.
It's okay to say that there are certain things we don't know for sure, where people are able to have, and explore, different ideas. Especially if those different ideas are not determinative of our practices today.
But there is a lot we do know and need clarification on. This seems to be one of them.
Which roles, today, and what good reasons? If you want to make that kind of claim, put your cards on the table rather than dancing around it.
I am trying to be as delicate as possible as I know its a sensitive issue for some. I think its the same basis as the early church which applies today. Isn't that what the church bases its position on today. The gospels and letters that talk about how the church was setup and developed and how males dominated.

I think males were more suited for the dicipline and authority needed to deal with issues inside and from outside the church. I think that is at least what the church bases it on.
The question in any given instance is, is God calling this person to this ministry? It's got nothing to do with dominance of one group or another, or gender breakdown, or anything like that.
Your skipping the question. If the bible gives examples of males dominating these postions and there was nothing wrong how is it wrong today that they do exactly the same. Can you blame the church for following the example of the early church. We do in all other things why not this issue.
The key words there are probably "regarded as." As in, it's a cultural stereotype, rather than reality.
Actually 'regarded as' is based on research which is reality and not just cultural stereotypes.

The reality is women don't play mens rugby league because of science. They are not as equipped. Saying a women are not suitable for this or that men are better footy players is not a stereotype but reality.

Saying males are better at dicipline, authority to get the job done in tuff situations is reality and fact and not a stereotype. You will find that males have dominated these positions and its not oppressing women but a reality that they are more suitable.

But like I keep saying this does not equate that some women cannot do the same. Its just that on average and especially in the more vital situations where you want the best then males are more suitable naturally because they command more respect due to their physical makeups.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,799
20,098
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,701,962.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But its relevant, thats the point.
No, it's not. If you agree that women who are qualified and fit can preach, then talk of "males being suitable for some roles" is irrelevant to the question.
Ok but then how do we explain the vast dominance of males.
We don't know for sure. I've given you one speculative reason. Another is that in fact the men were not so dominant but there are fewer historical records of the women.

But again, it doesn't matter. If you agree that women who are qualified and fit can preach, then the reasons why men have (apparently) outnumbered women at certain times are irrelevant to the question.

I'll give you an unrelated example. In some churches, in particular, there is a far higher proportion of introverts than extroverts in ministry. We're not really sure of the reason why; does our church culture particularly favour introverts? Do introverts find it easier to recognise and respond to God's call? Does God, in fact, call more introverts to ministry?

It's interesting to ponder, but unless people start arguing that this is evidence that in fact, extroverts are less suited to ministry, it doesn't really matter in practice.
I think males were more suited for the dicipline and authority needed to deal with issues inside and from outside the church.
If you want to make that argument, I would suggest:
- Setting out a coherent account of how discipline and authority are exercised in the church
- Setting out an account of the personal traits which allow someone to better exercise such discipline and authority
- Showing credible evidence that those traits invariably vary by gender, such that no woman can ever be suited for the role.

Until you've done that, this argument lacks any real substance.
Your skipping the question.
No, I'm not. I'm highlighting the question that really matters. Is God calling this person? If not, then there's nothing to discuss. If so, then it's our job as the church to respond constructively to that call.
Can you blame the church for following the example of the early church. We do in all other things
No we don't. We differ from the early church in all kinds of ways; sometimes for pragmatic reasons, and sometimes for theological reasons.
Actually :regarded as' is based on research which is reality and not just cultural stereotypes.
Like I said, get back to me with a coherent account of how order and authority are exercised in the church, the personal traits needed to do that, and evidence that those traits invariably vary by gender, and we'll have something to talk about.

And I'll tell you something, as someone who's been ordained over a decade now. Men might find it easier to command respect in this culture, because people defer to their size and whatnot; but there are plenty of women with steel in their spines who stand up to bullies, violent people, threatening people, abusers, and all the rest in the church just fine. Often women are more willing to do that hard work of confrontation than men are, because women are more keenly aware of the cost to the church community of not doing so.

So don't give me this "men are just naturally better at discipline" rubbish, when I've seen plenty of men who can't even discipline the paperwork on their desks, and plenty of women who have tackled issues that their conflict-averse brothers have let slide for decades.
 
Upvote 0

Ivan Hlavanda

Well-Known Member
Mar 27, 2020
1,773
1,148
33
York
✟149,781.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So Deborah wasn't able to lead Israel for 40 years?
It is true that Deborah was a judge in Judges 4. And in the absence of a man, the Lord used Deborah to bring about His will on one occasion. But when it came to going to war with the enemies, she was not about to lead the troops, and so she chose a man, Barak, to lead the troops.

Anna is another name I often see.
She was in the temple when Jesus was taken there to be dedicated in the temple, and she spoke a word from the Lord. But she was not a lifelong prophet. No woman ever had an ongoing prophetic role.

But occasionally, God used women to speak for Him. In the New Testament, it was the daughters of Philip, who on one occasion were used by the Lord to speak, not in a church service, but to speak for God. Those are all exceptions that prove the rule. You just cannot find any woman as a priest, any woman as a spiritual leader, any woman as a prophet anywhere in the Old Testament. But the rebellion was on.

Let's look at Isaiah chapter 3, and I pray you will understand why women must not be pastors.

Isaiah 3 16 “Moreover, the Lord said, ‘Because the daughters of Zion are proud and walk with heads held high” – “outstretched necks,” literally – “and seductive eyes.” So you have women who are stepping out of the God-ordained boundaries of their own husband’s control, and putting themselves on display for others, with seduction in mind. “They go along with mincing steps” – a certain kind of walk that is intended to be seductive – “and tinkle the bangles on their feet, therefore the Lord will afflict the scalp of the daughters of Zion with scabs, and the Lord will make their foreheads bare.’”

I think the worst thing for a woman is to be bald. That’s why those dear women who suffer through cancer and chemo and radiation and all that wear wigs, because everybody recognizes that that’s a woman’s glory. God’s going to make them bald in judgment.

“In that day the Lord will take away the beauty of their anklets, headbands, crescent ornaments, dangling earrings, bracelets, veils, headdresses, ankle chains, sashes, perfume boxes, amulets, finger rings, nose rings, festal robes, outer tunics, cloaks, money purses, hand mirrors,” – this sounds like a list for the next shopping spree – “undergarments, turbans, veils.” What you have here is these women have just gone crazy trying to call attention to themselves instead of humbling themselves in modesty and discretion under the headship of their husband and giving honor to him.

They brazenly flaunt themselves in a seductive way with all this ornamentation: anklets, headbands, crescent ornaments, dangling earrings. So interesting how the Lord is so specific about it, not that any one of these things is wrong in themselves. But this is so outrageous: bracelets, veils, head-dresses, ankle chains, sashes, perfume boxes, amulets, finger rings, nose rings, festal robes, outer tunics, cloaks, money purses, hand mirrors, undergarments, turbans, veils.

Unfortunately, verse 24, “It’ll come about that instead of sweet perfume there will be putrefaction; instead of a belt, a rope; instead of well-set hair, a plucked-out scalp; instead of fine clothes, a donning of sackcloth; and branding instead of beauty.” And then here’s the fallout: “Your men will fall by the sword.” Guess what? When women take over a culture, men become weak. When men become weak, they can be conquered. They can be conquered. You’re watching that happen in the western world today. As more and more and more and more women ascend to power, more and more men become weaker and weaker and weaker, and the level of vulnerability just keeps escalating.

“Your men will fall by the sword because they become weak.” You’ve literally lived out the curse of Genesis 3. You’ve desired to dominate them, and you’ve done it. “And your mighty ones are going to fall in battle. And her gates will lament and mourn,” – meaning the city – “and deserted she will sit on the ground.” Guess what? When all the men have been slaughtered, you can sit there with all your jewelry and junk; you’ve been conquered because you’ve overpowered your protectors. Don’t misunderstand this. This is what we are living in today. The curse has been legitimized, even in the evangelical church now, the last frontier to fall. Empowering women makes weak men. Weak men make everybody, everybody vulnerable to danger.

Chapter 3-12: “O My people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them.” Now that’s not intended to be anti-woman any more than it’s anti-children. Let me tell you something: if children are in charge, we’re in trouble. If women are in charge, we’re in trouble. And if you look carefully at our nation you would have to agree that it’s childish, young, inexperienced, ignorant women who are ascending into power.

When you overthrow the divine order, the results are always disastrous. And again, it’s not anti-women any more than it’s anti-children. But it’s a divine judgment on a nation that its young and its women are in power. Young people, it seems to me, and women are taking over churches. So there’s plenty of Old Testament revelation to uphold the New Testament standard for women to keep silent in the churches.

By the way, in the New Testament there was no woman apostle. There was no woman prophet. There was no woman pastor, elder. No New Testament book is written by a woman. No sermon is ever recorded from a woman. And every time God appoints people, whether it’s the apostles or Acts 13, it’s all men. This is the divine order.

Yes, women can share the gospel to men, they play important roles in the Church and missionaries, they do many wonderful stuff in God's name. But that is not preaching. I don't know why is it so hard to see the difference.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Truth7t7
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,799
20,098
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,701,962.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Yes, women can share the gospel to men, they play important roles in the Church and missionaries, they do many wonderful stuff in God's name. But that is not preaching. I don't know why is it so hard to see the difference.
It's an artificial distinction. And for those of us who do preach, a nonsensical one.

And you are incorrect; the New Testament mentions a woman apostle (Junia). It mentions women who prophesied. It mentions women who presided over worship in their homes (functioning as elders). And so on.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
30,692
9,586
NW England
✟1,271,528.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is true that Deborah was a judge in Judges 4. And in the absence of a man, the Lord used Deborah to bring about His will on one occasion.
If God had forbidden women to lead God would have appointed and provided a man.
Or are you saying that God was forced to go against his will and wishes and, much against his better judgement, settle for 2nd best?
But when it came to going to war with the enemies, she was not about to lead the troops, and so she chose a man, Barak, to lead the troops.
Judges 4:6-8 says that Deborah told Barak that the Lord commanded him to take 10,000 men and lead them to Mount Tabor. She (Deborah) would lead Sisera - the enemy - to Tabor and deliver him into Barak's hands.
Barak said that he would only do that (obey the Lord's command) if Deborah went with him. Deborah said that she would go with Barak but because of his response, he would not get any credit/honour/glory for Sisal's defeat. Barak could have defeated and killed his enemy, instead it was a woman who did that.

Anna is another name I often see.
She was in the temple when Jesus was taken there to be dedicated in the temple, and she spoke a word from the Lord. But she was not a lifelong prophet. No woman ever had an ongoing prophetic role.
Firstly, where does Scripture say that "no woman ever had an ongoing prophetic role"? How do you know that Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Isaiah's wife or Philip's daughters were prophets for only a while and then had their gifts withdrawn?
Secondly, it doesn't matter whether Anna prophesied for 7 weeks, 7 months or 70 years; she was a prophetess, who lived in the temple, worshipping "day and night" and prophesied about Jesus.
But occasionally, God used women to speak for Him. In the New Testament, it was the daughters of Philip, who on one occasion were used by the Lord to speak, not in a church service, but to speak for God.
Not forgetting the woman at the well, Mary Magdalene or Phoebe.
I don't know that the concept of a "church service" existed then. Believers met together to pray, encourage one another, break bread and so on. Paul does not say in 1 Corinthians 14 that when then met together, spoke in tongues and prophesied, that women could not do those things. In fact, he had already said (chapter 11) that women should prophesy with their heads covered).
Those are all exceptions that prove the rule.
What rule?
Are you saying that Almighty God - who could raise up worshippers from stones, Luke 19:40 - didn't want women to speak for him but was occasionally forced to go against his own will and allow it?
You just cannot find any woman as a priest, any woman as a spiritual leader, any woman as a prophet anywhere in the Old Testament.
ANY woman; no.
Those God had called to the role - Deborah, Miriam, Huldah, Isaiah's wife - yes.
But the rebellion was on.
Women didn't even dare rebel against men, never mind Almighty God.
(To be continued.)
 
Upvote 0

Truth7t7

Newbie
Dec 20, 2012
6,519
1,863
✟161,685.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If God had forbidden women to lead God would have appointed and provided a man.
Or are you saying that God was forced to go against his will and wishes and, much against his better judgement, settle for 2nd best?

Judges 4:6-8 says that Deborah told Barak that the Lord commanded him to take 10,000 men and lead them to Mount Tabor. She (Deborah) would lead Sisera - the enemy - to Tabor and deliver him into Barak's hands.
Barak said that he would only do that (obey the Lord's command) if Deborah went with him. Deborah said that she would go with Barak but because of his response, he would not get any credit/honour/glory for Sisal's defeat. Barak could have defeated and killed his enemy, instead it was a woman who did that.


Firstly, where does Scripture say that "no woman ever had an ongoing prophetic role"? How do you know that Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Isaiah's wife or Philip's daughters were prophets for only a while and then had their gifts withdrawn?
Secondly, it doesn't matter whether Anna prophesied for 7 weeks, 7 months or 70 years; she was a prophetess, who lived in the temple, worshipping "day and night" and prophesied about Jesus.

Not forgetting the woman at the well, Mary Magdalene or Phoebe.
I don't know that the concept of a "church service" existed then. Believers met together to pray, encourage one another, break bread and so on. Paul does not say in 1 Corinthians 14 that when then met together, spoke in tongues and prophesied, that women could not do those things. In fact, he had already said (chapter 11) that women should prophesy with their heads covered).

What rule?
Are you saying that Almighty God - who could raise up worshippers from stones, Luke 19:40 - didn't want women to speak for him but was occasionally forced to go against his own will and allow it?

ANY woman; no.
Those God had called to the role - Deborah, Miriam, Huldah, Isaiah's wife - yes.

Women didn't even dare rebel against men, never mind Almighty God.
(To be continued.)
1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
30,692
9,586
NW England
✟1,271,528.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Repeating the same verses - out of context - will not make them mean what you want them to mean.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.