Woman in the Ministry

Strong in Him said:

BUT people like Tom Wright, the heads of various denominations and theologians are equally studious in their studies of Scripture and have stated that verse does not preclude women from preaching and being ordained.

Click to expand...

What's the "BUT" all about there? What I was responding to was a claim that the "Reformation" of the 16-17th centuries recovered women's ordination. Well, it didn't, not from Scripture or history.

l

You would have thought that if this were a clear command from the Lord, he might be a little more consistent! After all, the Gospel hasn't changed in 2000 years,not the 10 commandments in about 3,500. Why not clarity on this issue?

Click to expand...

I'd say that there is clarity and consistency over the span of at least 2000 years. Other than a few tiny sects that were considered by all the other Christians of the time to be made up of extremists and rebels from all authority, there were no women clergy at all in any of the various churches until recent years. Now many churches are deciding to go wiht the world on all manner of doctrinal changes.

But we also know that, technically, there is actually NO doctrine that hasn't seen a few dissenters arise somewhere or other, is there?

Assyrian said:

The church managed to over look and forget quite a lot over 1500 years, unless the Reformation was a total mistake. Once the church began searching the scriptures to see what had been lost, it wasn't that long (in the context of 2000 years) before they rediscovered women's ministry. By the middle of the seventeenth century you had groups like the Quakers with women preachers including Margaret Fell who used Gal 3:28 among other scriptures in the tract Women's Speaking Justified, Proved, and Allowed of by the Scriptures, All such as speak by the Spirit and Power of the Lord Jesus. to justify women preaching. In the middle of the nineteenth century the passage was quoted by Catherine Booth in support of women's ministry and by Wesleyan Luther Lee as the text of his sermon in 1851 for the ordination of Antoinette L. Brown the first women ordain in the United States.

If this passage does not teach that in the privileges, duties, and responsibilities of Christ’s Kingdom, all differences of nation, caste, and sex are abolished, we should like to know what it does teach, and wherefore it was written.
Catherine Booth, 1859.
​

Click to expand...

Something interesting to consider is that even with those saying the Reformation was of the Lord, there were PLENTY during that era who noted where even the Reformation itself was in need of Reform....especially when it got to the point that others in the name of the Reformation decided to condemn anything within the realm of Catholicism--and thankfully, it wasn't the case that all of those who were either Reformers or Catholic were seeking to hunt each other down 24/7 (as goes the stereotype), as seen in examples such as Desiderius Erasmus.

And with the Reformation, as others were persecuted who didn't agree with many of the views of the Reformers, it's interesting to consider the views of those known as the "Radical Reformers. Within their circles were others who had no issue with the ordination of women as priests---and due to their equaling out of ministry amongst all members (as well as being against the use of the state to enforce the church), they ended up being persecuted often. For more, one can investigate the Anabaptist Mennonite Ethereal Library. The first Anabaptist Martyr, Felix Manz, was drowned to death in Zurich....with Zwingli in charge of Zurich.

Others to look up are those such as George Fox, as he's one of the best examples to study....& most of what occurs within the camp of Radical Reformers is often what's going down with the Organic/Simple Church Movement. ...especially those who are within the Anabaptist tradition (such as David Black and others). There was an excellent book on the issue entitled "The Reformers and their Step-Children" (as seen here and here ). If those in the Reformation were capable of great errror when it came to their actions and interpretation of scriptures to justify those actions, I would not think the same couldn't have occurred with certain views that they may've had toward women. Whereas the Reformation of the 16-17th centuries largely didn't seem to recover women's ordination, those of the Radical Reformation seemed willing to do so....and because of them being a minority and they wished to go steps beyond where many of the Reformers were going, it seems their views were greatly suppressed.

I think there's something to be said about how many things in scripture can be missed by even the greatest of people--regardless of how well or great their stature may be--due to other factors influencing their perspectives. There was ALOT of debate by Luther on whether or not to include James (as well as Esther) in the Cannon of scripture--with the book of James not being one of his favorites since it went counter to his viewpoints on grace based in Romans. Where he was correct was on how salvation via grace was forgotten--but even he had issues he had to deal with that influenced him to look past what certain scriptures said plainly.

And for other examples of cultural factors influencing perspective on scriptures, I'm reminded of what occurred with the movement known as Pietism. Many within the movement were deemed as being "against the church" when it came to their emphasizing the personal aspect of one's relationship with the Lord--and focusing in upon scriptures that detailed the need for personal holiness/individual worship experiences rather than having a corporate mindset with Church.....but there were political factors influencing those who called them "seperatists" from the Church.

As another said best on the issue in one discussion:

Strong in Him said:

Errr ... not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll try to explain my experience.

I was brought up, confirmed, became a Christian, went to Bible class etc in an Anglican church. I was happy to be an anglican - my husband and I got married in, and both attended, an anglican church.
When I was a teenager, my home church had a deaconess, as well as a male vicar and several lay readers. The church allowed women to preach, so she did that, as well as all the pastoral stuff, assisting the vicar and so on. It was always a source of pain for her that when the vicar was away, and we had Holy Communion, she could take the entire service, except for the consecration of the bread and wine - for which we often had to have a stranger - because she was not ordained. The C of E had no problem with women preaching, and had even said 20 years before, that it could see no theological reason why women shouldn't be ordained. But in practice, it never got through synod. This annoyed and upset me - I knew many lovely devout women who were hurt and personally affected by this attitude.
I said at the time that if I ever felt called to be a vicar I'd either go overseas to be ordained, or to the Methodist church, because they already did ordain women. But I wasn't called, and most of the time was fairly happy to be an anglican.

Fast forward 20 years; I was married and we attended an anglican church - sometimes together, but as I was suffering from M.E and Keith's church started early, I very rarely got there. Eventually Keith said that he'd rather I went to a different denomination than not go to church at all. So I went to a service at our local Methodist church. I ended up staying because people were friendly and made sure I got a lift to church each week. Also, after a few months, the lay worker, who was also a Local (lay) preacher, suggested that I had certain gifts and had I ever thought about preaching? I hadn't, and resisted it, but couldn't get away from the idea; it came back during worship, quiet times and so on. Eventually I told him that the idea was crazy, but it could just be that God wanted me to do this, for some reason. So I tested it out, expected to either fail or be told I was mistaken, but in fact got through the whole course and became an accredited preacher 4 years ago. I am a Local preacher (not ordained) in the Methodist church; my husband is a lay reader in the Anglican church.

Oh yes, and the Local preacher who first suggested this to me was married to the Minister!

So I ended up in a church that ordained women, with a female minister, though the reason I went there had nothing to do with ordination. I'm still there. The anglicans ordain women now, but I am not called to ordination. I am happy, affirmed and recognised as a lay preacher.

I'm not sure if that answers your question??

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing as you did--and yes, it did help to answer my question, as I was noticing some of the views you had and it occurred to me how the experiences one grows up with can shape the way that they may be more comfortable toward certain concepts....and on the same token, not every experience is the same.

Assyrian said:

.

Much better to simply refer to women priests as priests than try to throw in a subtle dig with priestess. Though personally I think priests should stick to NT titles like pastor, minister or elder anyway.

Click to expand...

Technically, as they had pagan prophetesses as well from the Cannanite culture ( Revelation 2:19-21 ), one could argue that the term "prophetesses" is to be condemned as well when utilizing the logic of "priestess = pagan"....but that wouldn't be consistent in light of how the scriptures use the term in a godly sense when referring to women ( Exodus 15:19-21 , Judges 4:3-5 , 2 Kings 22:13-15 , 2 Chronicles 34:21-23 , Luke 2:35-37, etc )--as well as referring to those within the nation of Israel who were corrupt with the title ( Nehemiah 6:13-15 ). The terms prophetesses and priestess were often synomous in many cultures...and as not everything that is to be known or can be known is within scripture, it seems odd to make an argument forbidding a term due to their being no mention of it. The writers of scripture not using the term doesn't mean it's not correct to use it since they had an audience they were writing to that would understand them.

To be clear, having the status of a priestess/prophetess would still have a context respecting leadership...for t[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]he careers of the Old Testament prophets make it clear that they did not exercise headship. What they often did was choosing to rebuke the leaders who did have the headship, trying to persuade them to change their evil course and turn to God. All too often their efforts were rejected. Some of them, such as Micaiah (1 Kings 22) and Jeremiah (Jer 38), were imprisoned because their messages displeased the rulers. Isaiah is said to have been sawn in two at the order of the king. Jesus recognized and lamented how the prophets had been treated: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!" (Matt 23:37). Clearly the prophets did not exercise headship in Israel....and indeed, their messages had great power and moral authority, because they came from God. Nonetheless, their prophetic role entailed no headship. Even when the country’s leaders obeyed God’s word conveyed through the prophets, the prophetic role was never that of head. The relationship between prophets and leaders (heads) in the best of times is illustrated in Ezra 5:1-2/Ezra 5:2 :[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]What is true of the male prophet is no less true of the female prophetess...for her role was not that of head but of messenger. It seems the scriptures see the the prophetess in a supportive and complementary role which does not negate male headship....and Paul seems to clarifies this point in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where he defends the right of women to pray and prophesy in the church because the gifts of the Spirit are given to the church without regard to sexual differences (Joel 2:28; 1 Cor 12:7-11). However, that Paul opposes the behavior of those women who disregarded their position by praying and giving prophetic exhortations to the congregation with their heads uncovered like the men.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Albion said:

What's the "BUT" all about there? What I was responding to was a claim that the "Reformation" of the 16-17th centuries recovered women's ordination. Well, it didn't, not from Scripture or history.

Click to expand...

I know.
You said that Luther, Calvin etc had studied the Scriptures and concluded that that verse didn't give people permission to ordain women.
I was saying, BUT there have been others, equally studious in their study of Scripture, who have concluded that that vers doesn't prevent women from being ordained.

Two groups of people reading 1 Tim 2:12, come to completely opposite conclusions about it. If it was a clear as people say it is, that could not happen.

Albion said:

Other than a few tiny sects that were considered by all the other Christians of the time to be made up of extremists and rebels from all authority, there were no women clergy at all in any of the various churches until recent years.

Click to expand...

Which doesn't prove that it is wrong; it may only prove that men are unable to let go of tradition and embrace the new things which the Lord does.

the Society of Friends (Quakers) have allowed women to serve as ministers since the early 1800s.

Click to expand...

And women preachers have been around for a long time. I believe the first one in the Methodist church was in 1760. The Salvation Army had women preachers from the beginning; indeed, William Booth was against women preachinguntil he heard one. Then he married her. In the early 1900s his granddughter became General of the SA.

Women have taken leadership roles too.
I don't know if Catherine of Siena (1300s) was ever ordained, but she was sent out by the Pope as his ambassador, gave him advice and apparently taught cardinals. A Catholic website says that she gathered a number of disciples around her, which suggests to me that she was their leader.
Gladys Aylward founded a church.
Elizabeth Fry was instrumental in prison reforms and the first woman to make a speech in the House of Commons.
Many many women have taught on the mission field.
And this is besides the Biblical women we have mentioned; Deborah who led the nation, Huldah, Miriam, Esther, the women at the empty tomb and Paul's female co workers, at least one of who was a deacon. (The same word in Greek for deacon is used about Jesus who came to serve us.)

A lot of people seem, and have seemed, to be very happy to appoint women as teachers and preachers. Yes I know that's not ordination, but it's hardly women being silent and submissive as some imply we ought to be, and which apparently Paul was teaching in 1 Timothy.

Albion said:

Now many churches are deciding to go wiht the world on all manner of doctrinal changes.

But we also know that, technically, there is actually NO doctrine that hasn't seen a few dissenters arise somewhere or other, is there?

Click to expand...

This isn't doctrine, it's church practice.
Doctrine is the Gospel, the Good News about Jesus who came to reconcile us to God. It has not changed in 2000 years. It is affirmed by every denomination and expressed in the Nicene creed. Those Christian groups which do not accept this creed and deny the Trinity, are not Christian denominations but Christian cults. The Gospel saves.
This is only church practice; it does not and cannot save. People can be entirely against female ministers, remain silent in corporate worship and teach that it is impotant to obey the Bible in this - but if they have not accepted the Gospel and Jesus, they are not saved. Others can be in favour of women ministers and preachers. They cannot be condemned for it; only rejecting Jesus leads to eternal death.

So Christians will believe whatever seems right to them on this matter. Don't agree with it? Great - find a church that believes likewise and get on with serving God. Believe that God may call women to serve him in this way? Ditto. Both groups will no doubt get a shock when they get to heaven and find members with the opposite view are there too. But by then it won't matter.

Albion said:

What I wrote was tongue in cheek, you know.

Click to expand...

I thought I noticed a bit of hyperbole, still it raised a good question, a lot of people think women's ministry is a new idea that came in with modern feminism, but it comes from the church, and it was radical groups like the Quakers that came up with ideas like abolishing slavery, women's suffrage and universal suffrage. If anything the women's movement got its original ideas from the Quakers. Troublemakers.

The Reformation did recover a lot that had been lost or overlooked, it's true, but women in the ordained ministry wasn't included.If it had been, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Cranmer, and all the other leaders of the Reformation would have instituted a change. And as you know, they were keen to be guided by the Scriptures and studied them relentlessly. Obviously then, they knew that verse and did not mistake it for permission to ordain women. You shouldn't either.

Click to expand...

The reformers were great men mightily used by God, but it doesn't mean they learned everything there was to learn or had seen and threw off every tradition that choked the church. I mean we don't still burn heretics or drown Anabaptists do we? Don't forget Luther and Calvin were deeply Augustinian in their theology, which helped them clear away much of the traditions that had grown up since then but gave them a blind spot with traditions and interpretations Augustine accepted or even came up with himself.

(And concerning the small Quaker sect, it has NO clergy or sacraments at all. All the functions performed by women in their communities, other than preaching, are those of laywomen; and it's questionable if their worship services are considered by members of the Society of Friends to be the equivalent of the worship services of the Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc.)

Click to expand...

While they didn't have clergy, they shared the same a tradition that said women shouldn't preach in church either, they must be in silence. It was this tradition they overturned on the basis of Gal 2:28 that men and women were one in Christ and that the Holy Spirit moved in them equally in church services. The argument is just as powerful if you have ordained clergy, because it removes every distinction between male and female, Jew and Greek, slave and free. More significantly for our discussion is it show the implications of this verse were realised by Christians way back in the seventeenth century.

Strong in Him said:

I know.
You said that Luther, Calvin etc had studied the Scriptures and concluded that that verse didn't give people permission to ordain women.

Click to expand...

True.

I was saying, BUT there have been others, equally studious in their study of Scripture, who have concluded that that vers doesn't prevent women from being ordained.

Click to expand...

In the 1500 years before the Reformation?

Two groups of people reading 1 Tim 2:12, come to completely opposite conclusions about it. If it was a clear as people say it is, that could not happen.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that there are some people these days who have no particular regard for precedent or, for that matter, anything the church has decided in the past. They will merely say, "God wouldn't do such an unfair thing..." It is largely based upon social trends...and then they find a verse, however vague or inappropriate, for when orthodox Christians begin to say that the Bible doesn't permit this.

And women preachers have been around for a long time. I believe the first one in the Methodist church was in 1760. The Salvation Army had women preachers from the beginning; indeed, William Booth was against women preachinguntil he heard one. Then he married her. In the early 1900s his granddughter became General of the SA.

Click to expand...

True, but that's more recent than the REFORMATION, too. My point was more narrowly focused in response to that particular post.

Women have taken leadership roles too.

Click to expand...

The issue was confined to the ordained ministry.

This isn't doctrine, it's church practice.

Click to expand...

to some.

will believe whatever seems right to them on this matter. Don't agree with it? Great - find a church that believes likewise and get on with serving God. Believe that God may call women to serve him in this way? Ditto. Both groups will no doubt get a shock when they get to heaven and find members with the opposite view are there too. But by then it won't matter.

Click to expand...

well said

Assyrian said:

I thought I noticed a bit of hyperbole, still it raised a good question, a lot of people think women's ministry is a new idea that came in with modern feminism, but it comes from the church, and it was radical groups like the Quakers that came up with ideas like abolishing slavery, women's suffrage and universal suffrage.

Click to expand...

For me, it's nothing I stew over, but I commented that it was not the Reformation that did this, that what you refer to is modern by historical standards, and much of this kind of change is motivated by social trends that then go looking for a Bible verse.

Assyrian said:

I thought I noticed a bit of hyperbole, still it raised a good question, a lot of people think women's ministry is a new idea that came in with modern feminism, but it comes from the church, and it was radical groups like the Quakers that came up with ideas like abolishing slavery, women's suffrage and universal suffrage. If anything the women's movement got its original ideas from the Quakers. Troublemakers.of this verse were realised by Christians way back in the seventeenth century.

Click to expand...

I thought the ideas behind abolishing slavery were in existence long before the Quakers came around, even though they did champion it alongside other things..just as the Methodists did when it came to their emphasis on social justice/abolishing slavery and social reform with prisons and child labor laws ending.

All of that said, definately feeling where you're coming from. Especially for those who were black women in the church and found a voice in the suffrage movement as well as in the church, I'm forever grateful.

Easy G (G²);59478676 said:

Technically, as they had pagan prophetesses as well from the Cannanite culture ( Revelation 2:19-21 ), one could argue that the term "prophetesses" is to be condemned as well when utilizing the logic of "priestess = pagan"....but that wouldn't be consistent in light of how the scriptures use the term in a godly sense when referring to women ( Exodus 15:19-21 , Judges 4:3-5 , 2 Kings 22:13-15 , 2 Chronicles 34:21-23 , Luke 2:35-37, etc )--as well as referring to those within the nation of Israel who were corrupt with the title ( Nehemiah 6:13-15 ). The terms prophetesses and priestess were often synomous in many cultures...and as not everything that is to be known or can be known is within scripture, it seems odd to make an argument forbidding a term due to their being no mention of it. The writers of scripture not using the term doesn't mean it's not correct to use it since they had an audience they were writing to that would understand them.

Click to expand...

The issue with priestess is more a question of graciousness. If ordained women want to use it as a title that is up to them, and if people disagree with women priests, simply don't use the title, the problem is when people want to use it simply because it is an insult. Oddly enough though, while I can find the term prophetess in the bible, I can't see the term priestess, either pagan or believer. We are simply priests.

To be clear, having the status of a priestess/prophetess would still have a context respecting leadership...for t[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]he careers of the Old Testament prophets make it clear that they did not exercise headship. What they often did was choosing to rebuke the leaders who did have the headship, trying to persuade them to change their evil course and turn to God. All too often their efforts were rejected. Some of them, such as Micaiah (1 Kings 22) and Jeremiah (Jer 38), were imprisoned because their messages displeased the rulers. Isaiah is said to have been sawn in two at the order of the king. Jesus recognized and lamented how the prophets had been treated: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!" (Matt 23:37). Clearly the prophets did not exercise headship in Israel....and indeed, their messages had great power and moral authority, because they came from God. Nonetheless, their prophetic role entailed no headship. Even when the country’s leaders obeyed God’s word conveyed through the prophets, the prophetic role was never that of head. The relationship between prophets and leaders (heads) in the best of times is illustrated in Ezra 5:1-2/Ezra 5:2 :[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Ezra 5:2 [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1] "Now the prophets, Haggai and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied to the Jews who were in Judah and Jerusalem, in the name of the God of Israel who was over them. Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Jeshua the son of Jozadak arose and began to rebuild the house of God which is in Jerusalem; and with them were the prophets of God, helping them" (emphasis mine).[/SIZE][/FONT]
​

Click to expand...

Wasn't Moses a prophet? So was Deborah who was both Judge of Israel and prophetess. Most prophets were raised up at a time when there was already leadership, like the king, and being a prophet didn't replace the established leadership. Mind you there was a lot of come-ye-out-from-among-them-ing with the prophets forming and leading a faithful subculture, the schools of the prophets.
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]What is true of the male prophet is no less true of the female prophetess...for her role was not that of head but of messenger. It seems the scriptures see the the prophetess in a supportive and complementary role which does not negate male headship....and Paul seems to clarifies this point in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where he defends the right of women to pray and prophesy in the church because the gifts of the Spirit are given to the church without regard to sexual differences (Joel 2:28; 1 Cor 12:7-11). However, that Paul opposes the behavior of those women who disregarded their position by praying and giving prophetic exhortations to the congregation with their heads uncovered like the men.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Click to expand...

Doesn't the headship passage with the instructions for how women were to minister in church (with a symbol of authority on their head not to disgrace their husbands) answer any issues with women ministry and headship? I don't think Paul's reference to women prophesying in 1Cor limits their role in leadership, in the very next chapter Paul ranks prophet second only to apostle in the ministries God appointed in the church.

Were there even elders and deacons appointed in Corinth at the time? I cannot find any mention of them unless it is in the terms even further down the list helps and governments.

Strong in Him said:

I know.
You said that Luther, Calvin etc had studied the Scriptures and concluded that that verse didn't give people permission to ordain women.
I was saying, BUT there have been others, equally studious in their study of Scripture, who have concluded that that vers doesn't prevent women from being ordained.

Two groups of people reading 1 Tim 2:12, come to completely opposite conclusions about it. If it was a clear as people say it is, that could not happen.

Click to expand...

I think a big problem in appealing to traditional interpretation of a passage is you cannot say Augustine studied the passage and disagreed with the interpretation, not if he didn't know about the interpretation to disagree with it or to ask if that was what the passage really meant.

Assyrian said:

The issue with priestess is more a question of graciousness. If ordained women want to use it as a title that is up to them, and if people disagree with women priests, simply don't use the title, the problem is when people want to use it simply because it is an insult. Oddly enough though, while I can find the term prophetess in the bible, I can't see the term priestess, either pagan or believer. We are simply priests.

Click to expand...

Wasn't Moses a prophet? So was Deborah who was both Judge of Israel and prophetess.

Click to expand...

From my understand, although Moses was a prophet ( Exodus 7:1-3 ), he was also the leader of an entire nation--and one wishing that there could have been more prophets like him (in the era he lived in), as seen in Numbers 11:26-30. He was also distinct in that he was not simply a prophet since the Lord made clear in Numbers 12:5-7 /Deuteronomy 34:9-11 that He chose to speak to Moses directly as one does with a friend....elevating Moses above the prophets when it came to how the Lord spoke to them. Moses made clear that prophets could arise amongst the people--but caution would be necessary since the true test of their faithfulness to the Lord would be seen in whether or not they pointed people back to Him ( Deuteronomy 13:1-3 /Deuteronomy 13 ).

With prophets leading nations, the same goes for Deborah. To be tehnical, Abraham was really the first person deemed to be a prophet ( Genesis 20:6-8 ) and he was the leader within his household/patriarch, even though there was no real leadership matching him...



Additionally, it seems that there were differing levels of prophets within the OT just as it was within the NT. I'm reminded of how Samuel was the Chief Prophet in his day as well as the last judge of Israel ( 1 Samuel 3:19-21 /1 Samuel 3, 1 Samuel 9:8-10 1 Samuel 9, 1 Samuel 9:18-20 , 1 Chronicles 26:27-29 , 1 Chronicles 29:28-30 )....and yet, there were other prophets who existed as well --traveling and prophesying to music ( 1 Samuel 10:4-6, 1 Samuel 10:9-11/ 1 Samuel 10 ). At that time, Samuel was the leader over that school of prophets ( 1 Samuel 19:19-21, 1 Samuel 19:23-24 , 1 Samuel 28:5-7 , 1 Chronicles 9:21-23 ) and gave guidance to the nation...but once the monarchy began, even he was subject to being second to the king in making decisions---good or bad. There were others apart from the head prophet, Samuel, who the Lord used to speak...whether that be Nathan the Prophet (who Samuel raised up in his place) or Gad the Seer (also called a prophet, 2 Samuel 24:10-12 /2 Samuel 24 ) who the Lord used to speak to David.

The same dynamics occurred with other prophets such as Elijah and Elijah and those within the school of the prophets ( 1 Kings 18:3-5 , 1 Kings 18:12-14 , 1 Kings 19:9-11, 2 Kings 2:4-6 ,2 Kings 2 2 Kings 4:1-3 , 2 Kings 6:1-3 / 2 Kings 6, 2 Kings 9:6-8, 2 Kings 17:12-14 )

Most prophets were raised up at a time when there was already leadership, like the king, and being a prophet didn't replace the established leadership. Mind you there was a lot of come-ye-out-from-among-them-ing with the prophets forming and leading a faithful subculture, the schools of the prophets

Click to expand...

Agreed, although I would add that many of them could walk in leadership in the sense that if the Lord told the king/others to listen to His prophets and they didn't, the prophets could proclaim whatever judgement the Lord commanded and allowed--and they weren't powerless or in the position to be bullied. I'm always reminded of what occurred with Elisha when he called down a curse on forty-two of the youths who mocked him--with the curse coming to pass in the form of bears ( 2 Kings 2:23-25 /2 Kings 2 )...

.

Doesn't the headship passage with the instructions for how women were to minister in church (with a symbol of authority on their head not to disgrace their husbands) answer any issues with women ministry and headship?

Click to expand...

I think that it addresses alot...and for those fellowships where women have coverings, it's rather beautiful

I don't think Paul's reference to women prophesying in 1Cor limits their role in leadership, in the very next chapter Paul ranks prophet second only to apostle in the ministries God appointed in the church.

Click to expand...

That I can definately see...but I think there is something to be said about order, in that prophets were used in the NT to establish the church via encouragement and edification ( Acts 11:26-28 , Acts 15:31-33 / Acts 15, Acts 21:9-11 / Acts 21 , etc )---but it was not in the same sense as it was in the OT fully since there's no record of prophets ever being able to declare judgement upon the entire body of Christ as OT prophets did---especially in light of the ministry of the Holy Spirit amongst all of the believers. Within the NT, prophets didn't seem to be running the show as much as other roles within the body...and they had a place (1 Corinthians 12:28-30, 1 Corinthians 14:31-33 , 1 Corinthians 14:28-30 1 Corinthians 14:36-38, Ephesians 2:19-21, Ephesians 3:4-6 , etc ). But it wasn't in the sense that they were the ones running things. They simply gave guidance/encouragement and edification by the Lord--and even their prophetic declarations were to be judged by the rest of the Body, commanded by the Lord to test all prophecy...


For more of a better explaination in the event I'm not conveying what I'd like properly:

• Are There Really Prophets in Today's Church? - UK Apologetics
• Gospel-Driven Prophecy: Understanding the Differences Between ...

Were there even elders and deacons appointed in Corinth at the time? I cannot find any mention of them unless it is in the terms even further down the list helps and governments.

Click to expand...

I believe there were elders.


The Church in Corinth was founded during Paul's first visit there in his 2nd missionary journey (Acts 18). He probably arrived in late 50 AD. He stayed with Aquilla and Priscilla, who came after the edict of Claudius expelled certain Jews from Rome in 49-50---and in time, there were leaders established in the church there. It was noted that Apollos was one of the leaders there in I Corinthians 1-2, although Apollos had left Corinth and refused to return until another time (1st Corinthians 16:12). And 1st Corinthians 16 shows those in leadership whom Paul commanded others listen to... in light of how there was a BIG problem with disobediance occurring/disorder and factions:

Albion said:

For me, it's nothing I stew over, but I commented that it was not the Reformation that did this, that what you refer to is modern by historical standards,

Click to expand...

Seventeenth century is hardly modern, it is more the Reformation working out the implications of their new found freedom in Christ. Even if it wasn't it Luther who said Ecclesia semper reformanda est the church continually reforming itself is an implication of the Reformation.

and much of this kind of change is motivated by social trends that then go looking for a Bible verse.

Click to expand...

There certainly is a social trend today towards feminism, but the social trend originated in the church, back with the Quakers. On the other hand male only leadership in the church was established at a time when Roman society was deeply patriarchal. Church and society were completely patriarchal when the Quakers and early Methodists began breaking down the barriers to women's ministry.

Assyrian said:

If a minister is claiming headship over a church isn't he usurping Christ's role as bridegroom to his bride, role he was never given in the bible?

Click to expand...

He does so in the name of Christ. He is not usurping the role. And again, a pastor doesn't necessarily claim "heaship" - he is not a dictator or a little pope. He leads, which is an entirely different concept from bossing.

---

There's also a huge difference between general leading and the office of the ministry. Deborah was not performing the duties of a priest at the time she was a judge. The many women honored in the New Testament were also not performing the duties of the office of the ministry. Again, big difference between the two.

PreachersWife2004 said:

He does so in the name of Christ. He is not usurping the role.

Click to expand...

He is if he is claiming a position that isn't his to claim, whether he does it in Christ's name or not. Didn't Jesus warn us about people claiming things in his name?

And again, a pastor doesn't necessarily claim "heaship" - he is not a dictator or a little pope. He leads, which is an entirely different concept from bossing.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with that, then again if leading a church isn't headship, how is a woman going against biblical headship by being a minister?

---There's also a huge difference between general leading and the office of the ministry. Deborah was not performing the duties of a priest at the time she was a judge.

Click to expand...

The Levitical priesthood certainly wasn't open to women but that was fulfilled in the cross, the New Testament priesthood are either Christ high priesthood (which again no one can usurp) and the priesthood of all believers. Basically you need to show from the bible that NT ministries were not open to women. At least we have cleared up one argument against it that church leadership is headship and women can't be church leaders because it goes against biblical headship.

The many women honored in the New Testament were also not performing the duties of the office of the ministry. Again, big difference between the two.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is a good argument. I am pretty sure if Phoebe had been called deacon of the church a Cenchreae you would have no problem with deacons being 'an office of the ministry' in fact the term minister is a translation of the Greek diakonos. Where we have names of people in NT ministries apostles and deacons, we find women among their number, we don't know the names of any bishops, and the only elder we have a name of is John, so it really isn't an argument to say we don't know any women performing these duties.

Assyrian said:

Seventeenth century is hardly modern

Click to expand...

To a historian, it is. However, I don't think this should be argued over. The Reformation was spotlighted in the post that kicked this off, and that was the point of reference no matter what term is used for the period since then.

it is more the Reformation working out the implications of their new found freedom in Christ. Even if it wasn't it Luther who said Ecclesia semper reformanda est the church continually reforming itself is an implication of the Reformation.

Click to expand...

You have a point there. However, the third generation reformers don't have too much in common with the original Reformation, and of course, all churches evolve.

There certainly is a social trend today towards feminism, but the social trend originated in the church, back with the Quakers.

Click to expand...

I disagree. By the time of the Quakers, society had moved already in that direction. Big time, some would say.

Church and society were completely patriarchal when the Quakers and early Methodists began breaking down the barriers to women's ministry.

Click to expand...

No, that's not the case at all.

Albion said:

To a historian, it is. However, I don't think this should be argued over. The Reformation was spotlighted in the post that kicked this off, and that was the point of reference no matter what term is used for the period since then.

Click to expand...

Maybe I wasn't clear when I brought up the Reformation. It wasn't to clam Luther and Calvin reintroduced women's ministries but to address your point:What the Reformation showed was how much had been overlooked in 1500 years that went before. Gal 3:28 wasn't overlooked that much longer. What it took was for the bible to get into the hands of the common people and for a godly woman to read the verse and say "Wait... what...???" And that didn't take long at all.

You have a point there. However, the third generation reformers don't have too much in common with the original Reformation, and of course, all churches evolve.

Click to expand...

No I am not appealing to the Reformers as a sacred authority, though you can trace the roots back to the Reformation in the desire to get back to scripture and search out its meaning for themselves, not matter what tradition or people in fancy robes and collars still told them.

I disagree. By the time of the Quakers, society had moved already in that direction. Big time, some would say.

Click to expand...

You mean Knox with his Monsterous Regiment? I don't think an handful of female monarchs made society a hotbed of feminism.

No, that's not the case at all.

Click to expand...

Could a wife own property or was she property? Did she have any rights to her children if her husband left her or were they his property too? Could women join professions like law or become doctors, did they earn the same pay as a man, could they go to university? The church was pretty thoroughly patriarchal too, not that many women vicars, bishops or archbishops. There may have been a handful of very wealth upper class women with a bit of clout in society, as you had back in Roman society, but for the vast majority of society a woman's place was in the home.

Assyrian said:

Maybe I wasn't clear when I brought up the Reformation. It wasn't to clam Luther and Calvin reintroduced women's ministries but to address your point:

I wonder how every Christian Church for the better part of the last 2000 years managed to overlook that book of the Bible
​

What the Reformation showed was how much had been overlooked in 1500 years that went before. Gal 3:28 wasn't overlooked that much longer. What it took was for the bible to get into the hands of the common people and for a godly woman to read the verse and say "Wait... what...???" And that didn't take long at all.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a guess to me, certainly not history. The common people could read and the Bible was available, if not easily done. That aside, Luther and Calvin, et al were Bible scholars, as is not denied even by their detractors. If this one verse settled the issue, we would not only have had plenty of people arguing for women's ordination both before and at the time of the Reformation....but there would have been some women clergy in history and mentioned in the NT. There were none. IOW, this one verse in no way is the sum of what the issue turns on.

Strong in Him said:

And I've given examples of women who ARE Ministers of a church who've been called by God to do so, and are bveing blessed by him.

Click to expand...

Sister, it's been well established that God has and will use whomever or whatever He pleases for His good. In my estimation, His good may often appear a blessing but it can also be a path to our destruction for lack of our obedience.

Strong in Him said:

Deborah was a leader - call her a judge if you prefer, but she was leading the nation. The text makes it very clear that while these God appointed judges were leading, the nation followed God; when they died, the nation turned away until the next one came. There was peace in the land for over 40 years when Deborah was leading, and she is one of a long list of judges.

Click to expand...

Please show me where in Scripture Deborah led men in worship before God? Societal roles for women have nothing to do with the role of women in the church before God.

Strong in Him said:

"I feel led to do this" is very different from "I think God may be calling me to do this, these are the reasons why I am submitting this call to the church to be tested."

Click to expand...

I don't think God's call is something you can put before man for confirmation. The only standard that men can employ is that of God's word, so again I ask, where in God's word is there definitive evidence of a woman or women leading men in worship before God? There isn't any.

Strong in Him said:

In many cases the women I know did not feel led to preach or be ordained; they didn't want to and resisted. But God kept calling, other people affirmed it and they got no peace until they obeyed and began training.

Click to expand...

And this may indeed be true in terms of women leading women and children, however, the moment they step outside the parameters God set for womankind by leading men in worship before Him, they stop being obedient to Him.

Strong in Him said:

I'll gladly share my own calling if you like; I doubt it'll convince you to change your mind, but it might make you think and consider that this is more than just a "feeling".

Click to expand...

There is no doubt that women claiming "calls" to lead men in worship before God is "much more than just a 'feeling'."

Strong in Him said:

It's very very bad logic to assume that it can't happen the way I've described and that ALL women, both now and throughout the years, who preach and/or have been ordained are disobedient, rebellious or sinners. You even imply we are such in your last sentance.

Click to expand...

For someone to act in obedience to God's word and example as found in Scripture is an enormous statement of faith as opposed to an implication.

Albion said:

Sounds like a guess to me, certainly not history. The common people could read and the Bible was available, if not easily done. That aside, Luther and Calvin, et al were Bible scholars, as is not denied even by their detractors. If this one verse settled the issue, we would not only have had plenty of people arguing for women's ordination both before and at the time of the Reformation....but there would have been some women clergy in history and mentioned in the NT. There were none. IOW, this one verse in no way is the sum of what the issue turns on.

Click to expand...

I stand in agreement. Very well put Brother.