• 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.

Did Paul contradict Judges Four?

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,452
1,302
72
Sebring, FL
✟807,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
John Wesley on the difference between Quakerism and Christianity: The Wesley Center Online: Wesley's Letters: 1748

A better-formatted version: The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. John Wesley

John Wesley requesting that Mr. Peacock put a stop to women preaching in his circuit: The Wesley Center Online: Wesley's Letters: 1780b

Wesley was far from an egalitarian. He demanded that men and women sit separately in church, according to ancient Christian custom:


Source: The Wesley Center Online: Wesley's Letters: 1781a


Source: The Wesley Center Online: Wesley's Letters: 1784a

And from his commentary on 1 Timothy, the note for ch. 2 v. 12 - "To usurp authority over the man - By public teaching." Source: The Wesley Center Online: Notes On St Paul's First Epistle To Timothy


I don’t know if John Wesley was always consistent. He was concerned about public opinion and he hoped to reconcile the differences between Methodists and the Church of England.

The United Methodist Church and many other Methodist/Wesleyan churches does have women who serve as ministers. This is not a recent development. As far as I can tell, nothing but good comes from this.

Years ago, in the 1970’s, I went to a Methodist church service and met an elderly woman who had been ordained as a Methodist minister around 1910. I have seen a female minister preside over a funeral in a Methodist church, and I have seen other Methodist churches with female ministers on the staff. Why is this a problem?

By their fruit you will recognise them. Do people pick grapes
from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree
bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear
good fruit.
Matthew 7:16-18 NIV


Jesus says that we will know people by their “fruit,” by the results. Why not judge female ministers by the fruit of their ministry?
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,452
1,302
72
Sebring, FL
✟807,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Hypothetically, a widow's brother, son, or uncle, would be in charge.
Same goes for the unmarried, apart from a "son".

Hope2: “Hypothetically, a widow's brother, son, or uncle, would be in charge.”

When this had dawned on him [Peter], he went to the house of Mary
the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had
gathered and were praying.
Acts 12:12 NIV


Hope, if that were true, the house, or house-church, that Peter went to would be the “house of Mark” and not “the house of Mary the mother of” John Mark. Do not underestimate the importance of house-churches owned by women.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,452
1,302
72
Sebring, FL
✟807,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Feel free to Biblically demonstrate how the context of Gal 3:28 relates to the context of 1 Tim 2:11-12.

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these
things to the Eleven and to all the others.
It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James,
and the others with them who told this to the apostles.
Luke 24:9-10 NIV

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the
mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they
might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
Matthew 16:1 NIV


Clare, let me pose a question. Suppose that you were living in New Testament times, when Mary, the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the other women mentioned above were still living. If Mary, mother of Jesus, and witness to the crucifixion, came to your town, could she speak to your church? If she were invited to speak, would you walk out because a woman cannot speak in church?

The same question goes for Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and Salome. These women are witnesses to the resurrection. If any or all of these women came to your town, should they speak to a church congregation? If they were invited to speak, would you walk out? Do you have to go outside and let them speak in the courtyard or what?

The same goes for other women who were witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Would you hear them or not? I don’t believe that Paul ever intended to silence those who were witnesses to the life of Christ.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
14,797
7,791
50
The Wild West
✟712,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
John Wesley on the difference between Quakerism and Christianity: The Wesley Center Online: Wesley's Letters: 1748

A better-formatted version: The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. John Wesley

John Wesley was particularly right to challenge the Quakers, some of whom indeed did wind up rejecting Christianity, particularly in the UK. These groups are known sometimes as “liberal Friends”, “conservative Friends”, “traditional Friends” and by other titles that indicate a continuity in practice. Essentially, by stripping away all liturgies, creeds and confessions of faith and retaining only a vague orthopraxis, the result was the emergence of groups which were like a less liturgical version of the Unitarian Universalists. In my childhood I had a friend who was a vintner, who was a devout Quaker, and who was quite convinced that no Quakers anywhere held any fixed doctrine and regarded the idea of dogmatics as anathema.

Now there are some Quakers who are expressly Christian, known as “Evangelical Friends” and some of them even practice baptism and the Eucharist and are not substantially different from other Evangelical churches.

I suspect the reason why the Friends established a foothold was that the Church of England prior to Anglo-Catholicism was very noisy; it did not provide, at the time, much in terms of an outlet or guidance on the pursuit of sacred silence as had previously been accessible via the Roman Catholic Low Mass. So people used to worship with long periods of silence were inclined to pursue it. In Holy Orthodoxy, we would never need to seek this out, since we have Hesychasm, which facilitates quiet or silent worship but worship which is not devoid of words; and this extends even to the Oriental Orthodox, whose monks would use the prayer “Kyrie Eleison” or memorize the Psalms or both (we also have as an alternative to Athonite Hesychasm the Prayer Rule of St. Seraphim of Sarov, which features more instances of the Pater Noster and an abbreviated form of the Orthodox version of the Ave Maria which I now realize is the one that our Lutheran friend @MarkRohfrietsch saw, in that he had seen an Orthodox Ave Maria that lacked a petition for intercessions, but it is not the standard Orthodox recension or the recension used by the Old Believers, but is rather an abbreviated form used by St Seraphim of Sarov.

The real tragedy of the Methodist church from which we both hail is the extend to which it disregarded John Wesley’s Orthodox-influenced teachings*; I never in my youth encountered a parish with a weekly Eucharist that promoted fasting on Wednesday and Friday in the manner of the early church (which all Eastern and Oriental Orthodox maintain, and also the Assyrian Church of the East and the Eastern Catholics, in North America at least; it has been my experience that the Greek Catholics in Europe are much more Latinized and have divergent practices, so whereas the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Eparchies in North America are in many cases identical to us in worship, this is not the case in Ukraine, and yet the extent to which Latinizations have been removed from their liturgy since Vatican II in 1969 has actually caused a schism, with a group called the Society of St. Josaphat which I believe has some sort of informal alliance with the SSPX (a group I feel has been viillainized much like TLM Catholics in general, but it is the case that TLM Catholics are less excited about ecumenical relations with the Orthodox, however, their worship looks a lot more like our worship than that of the Novus Ordo Missae in that the traditional Latin mass has the level of ornate detail and complexity that characterizes the ancient liturgies.

Now as a final point of clarification, lest it be said that I am minimizing the problems with Quakerism as a Christian denomination, this is not my intent. Indeed until recently I had not realized the severity of those problems; while reading a copy of the Oxford Handbook of Quaker Studies on Quaker worship, I was surprised by how much worse things were than I had anticipated, and how opposed Quaker views on worship were to everything I believe in. That said I find myself seeking ways of undermining their system, to inject Orthodox ideas that might call them to repentence. At the same time, there are limits to what I would do; I would not, for example, disrupt the waiting worship of a Quaker meeting, in the same way that George Fox disrupted Anglican services in order to preach his erroneous doctrine. The overall doctrinal error of the Quakers is very similar to that of an ancient sect which I recall was referred to as the Euchites or Messalians, which rejected sacramental worship along similar lines - it is in the Panarion of St. Epiphanios of Cyprus and epitomized in the Fount of Knowledge of St. John of Damascus.

* One particularly extreme example of this happened in British Methodism, rather than in the UMC in which we were baptized, different as it is from the UMC of today, to a church many Methodists regard as a sister church - the Salvation Army, which historically did not embrace baptism or the Eucharist, despite these being foundational Methodist doctrines. This was due to the influence of General William Booth’s wife Catharine, who had a Quaker upbringing. The Salvation Army did a lot of good, along with the Anglo Catholics, in the impoverished parts of London, but the Anglo Catholics were ironically much closer to Methodist doctrine, with some even, like John Wesley, obtaining clandestine ordinations from visiting Orthodox clergy, and they tended to celebrate a weekly Eucharist and observe various Patristic doctrines which John Wesley also arrived. They were persecuted, unlike the Salvation Amry, arrested and imprisoned for the crime of wearing a chasuble while being an Anglican priest, even though as had been pointed out, the Ornaments Rubric actually required this, since the vesture in use during the reign of King Edward VI generally included the Chasuble and other devices forbidden by the 19th century Anglican authorities.**

** Delightfully the Anglo Catholics in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney have evaded a ban on “the vestment” by which is meant chasuables by wearing copes, and it should be noted that while the Western cope has a different liturgical function than the Byzantine Phelonion or Syriac Orthodox Phayno, it is very similar in appearance, to the extent that most priests of the Assyrian Church of the East just buy Western copes, although some purchase copes from the same tailors in India used by the Syriac Orthodox. Syriac Orthodox vestments are almost identical to those of the Eastern Orthodox; one of the view differences being the stole worn by the priests, called the hamnikho, meaning “necklace”, does not consist of two halves permanently attached but with vestigial buttons, but rather one single piece of fabric, and in the Coptic Orthodox church this is the main vestment much of the time due to the high desert temperatures, but stoles do exist and are worn on occasion, but they tend to be more minimal than ours. Whereas Armenians wear a phelonion or chasuble which like that of the Athonite monks and the Russian, Ukrainian and Finnish clergy and many of those of the Orthodox Church in America, features a raised collar due to the cold temperatures in Armenia, but it attaches externally. The Armenians also have a custom of having their deacons wear mitres on the feast of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, which in their rite occurs in the Nativity Fast and not immediately after Christmas, since the Armenian Apostolic Church was the only ancient church which retained the ancient practice of celebrating the Nativity and Baptism of our Lord on the same day, since it never had a problem with Arianism, nor did it have various Pagan observances like the Saturnalia disrupting its fast, which created a natural reason for the churches in the Hellenic cities of Greece, Egypt and the Levant and especially Rome and the Western Empire to celebrate the Nativity on the very logical date indicated by adding nine months to the pre-existing Feast of the Annunciation.

The common heritage of the different Eastern liturgies is evident today, which in the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Sunday of the Last Judgement, and in the Syriac Orthodox Church is the Sunday of the Faithful Reposed (with content somewhere in between Soul Saturday yesterday and propers for today); next Sunday is Forgiveness Sunday for us, but for the Syriac Orthodox it is the first day of Lent, which lasts 50 days in their rite (albeit with less severe fasting), and the first day of their fast is the Sunday of the Wedding Feast at Cana.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jas3
Upvote 0

jas3

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2023
1,117
813
The South
✟78,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don’t know if John Wesley was always consistent.
He was, it's just not convenient for the modern UMC.
The United Methodist Church and many other Methodist/Wesleyan churches does have women who serve as ministers. This is not a recent development.
It is, actually, and I did a deep dive on this history when I left Methodism, so allow me to provide some insight here. The first woman Methodists claim was ordained was Helenor M. Davisson in the mid-19th century. But she presided over her own "ordination" to the diaconate, which took place in her family home, and at the next General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, her ordained status was rejected by the denomination.

There were other similar isolated instances of women being "ordained" in a local, informal capacity and then rejected by the MEC, but the only changes that took place in an official capacity were the introduction of deaconesses - not ordained as deacons, but a separate ministry - in the late 19th century and the allowance of women as local ministers - again, still not ordained - in the early 20th. Women being considered "ordained" as ministers is truly a change that didn't happen until 1956.

And frankly, even if John Wesley had been a rainbow-flag-toting feminist who would not be rolling in his grave at the idea of "women bishops," the 18th century is very recent on the scale of Church history. So no matter where in the ~250 year history of Methodism you place women's ordination, it's a recent innovation.
As far as I can tell, nothing but good comes from this.
Aside from abandoning the apostolic precedent and direct apostolic instructions for a male priesthood, enabling no-fault divorce and remarriage, ordaining remarried men and women, ordaining homosexuals, performing same-sex "weddings," allowing clerical polygamy, and the loss of millions of members as the denomination collapses?
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
14,797
7,791
50
The Wild West
✟712,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Here the Prophetess Deborah commissions Barak to gather an army of Israelites and fight the foreign enemy. The enemy is Jabin, King of Hazor, a Canaanite kingdom. Jabin’s army is led by Sisera, the top general. With Deborah’s guidance, Barak defeats Sisera in a smashing victory that brings peace for at least a generation.

Does this Israelite victory over Hazor tell us that Paul’s advice to Timothy on the role of women should be viewed as reflecting the limitations of the time? It looks like it cannot be a general command for all believers for all time.

No, because the Old Testament is to be interpreted, as a general exegetical principle, using the New, and also in accordance with Church Tradition.

That said, while I am opposed to changing the Orthodox practice both on ecclesiological and theological grounds (changing the practice in the Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church would immediately engender a schism and it would also be pointless in the case of the Orthodox church since the wives of ordained presbyters become presbyteras, and our highest office, that of a Monk or Nun tonsured in the Great Schema, is given to both monks and nuns, since they live an angelic life, and interestingly those who become Bishops are not elligible to receive the Great Schema, because the Great Schema requires a continual focus on prayer that a bishop would not have time for; for the same reason bishops must be celibate and are usually monastic, but ones who make a different sacrifice to Christ, in the case of those denominations which validly ordained women, I do have friends who are female clergy, and I believe they should be respected as clergy within their specific denominations.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
14,797
7,791
50
The Wild West
✟712,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
He was, it's just not convenient for the modern UMC.

The modern UMC distresses me, and from a Wesleyan perspective would be unrecognizable. In 2018 the GC voted decisively to adopt the Traditional Plan, and that should have been the end of it.

There is one egregious UMC pastor who made the false claim that John Wesley was opposed to creeds, based on one of his writings taken out of context, ignoring the fact that the Sunday Service Book for Methodists in North America specified that the Apostle’s Creed be said at all services. There was at the time a movement in the nascent Protestant Episcopal Church, which failed, but came very close to succeeding, to exclude creeds from the initial Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer, and I think its quite possible the reason why Wesley did not pursue unity with the Episcopalians was due to concern over that and other contemporary tendencies in 18th century Anglicanism known as “Latitudinarianism” which later developed into the Broad Church movement, Liberal Catholicism and other movements such as the movement in the Episcopal Church to permit communion for those not baptized (which has fortunately not taken off, but that such a movement exists and has historical continuity going back to the 18th century indicates the kind of problem with this anti-doctrinal movement which goes back to the Elizabethan settlement and is analogous to Pietism within the Lutheran and Evangelical communions, which has been more directly confronted by Orthodox apologists.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jas3
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,104
7,223
North Carolina
✟331,106.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When they came back from the tomb, they told all these
things to the Eleven and to all the others.
It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James,
and the others with them who told this to the apostles.
Luke 24:9-10 NIV

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the
mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they
might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
Matthew 16:1 NIV


Clare, let me pose a question. Suppose that you were living in New Testament times, when Mary, the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the other women mentioned above were still living. If Mary, mother of Jesus, and witness to the crucifixion, came to your town, could she speak to your church? If she were invited to speak, would you walk out because a woman cannot speak in church?

The same question goes for Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and Salome. These women are witnesses to the resurrection. If any or all of these women came to your town, should they speak to a church congregation? If they were invited to speak, would you walk out? Do you have to go outside and let them speak in the courtyard or what?

The same goes for other women who were witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Would you hear them or not? I don’t believe that Paul ever intended to silence those who were witnesses to the life of Christ.
Non-responsive.

That is not a Biblical demonstration of how the context of Gal 3:28 relates to the context of 1 Tim 2:11-12.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,452
1,302
72
Sebring, FL
✟807,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
He was, it's just not convenient for the modern UMC.

It is, actually, and I did a deep dive on this history when I left Methodism, so allow me to provide some insight here. The first woman Methodists claim was ordained was Helenor M. Davisson in the mid-19th century. But she presided over her own "ordination" to the diaconate, which took place in her family home, and at the next General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, her ordained status was rejected by the denomination.

There were other similar isolated instances of women being "ordained" in a local, informal capacity and then rejected by the MEC, but the only changes that took place in an official capacity were the introduction of deaconesses - not ordained as deacons, but a separate ministry - in the late 19th century and the allowance of women as local ministers - again, still not ordained - in the early 20th. Women being considered "ordained" as ministers is truly a change that didn't happen until 1956.

And frankly, even if John Wesley had been a rainbow-flag-toting feminist who would not be rolling in his grave at the idea of "women bishops," the 18th century is very recent on the scale of Church history. So no matter where in the ~250 year history of Methodism you place women's ordination, it's a recent innovation.

Aside from abandoning the apostolic precedent and direct apostolic instructions for a male priesthood, enabling no-fault divorce and remarriage, ordaining remarried men and women, ordaining homosexuals, performing same-sex "weddings," allowing clerical polygamy, and the loss of millions of members as the denomination collapses?

Jas3: “...enabling no-fault divorce and remarriage, ordaining remarried men and women, ordaining homosexuals, performing same-sex "weddings," allowing clerical polygamy, and the loss of millions of members as the denomination collapses?”

You are confusing the eighteenth century Methodists with modern Methodists.

Here are a few more examples of early female preachers and missionaries, quoted from a much longer list.

1827: Sojourner Truth
“Isabella Bomefree, a slave who later changes her name to Sojourner Truth, is emancipated when slavery is abolished in New York State. That same year, she co-founds Kingston Methodist Church. In 1843, she feels "called in the spirit" and begins to travel and preach. She becomes involved in the abolitionist movement, and her public speaking combines her religious faith with her experiences as a slave.”

1837
“Ann Wilkins is appointed missionary to Liberia by the Methodist Episcopal Missionary Society.”

1856
“Clementina Rowe Butler and her husband William arrive as the first Methodist Episcopal Church missionaries to India. In 1872, they establish a Methodist Episcopal mission in Mexico.”

As far as I know, nothing but good came of these female preachers and missionaries.

Source
Timeline of Women in Methodism | UMC.org


 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,452
1,302
72
Sebring, FL
✟807,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No, because the Old Testament is to be interpreted, as a general exegetical principle, using the New, and also in accordance with Church Tradition.

That said, while I am opposed to changing the Orthodox practice both on ecclesiological and theological grounds (changing the practice in the Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church would immediately engender a schism and it would also be pointless in the case of the Orthodox church since the wives of ordained presbyters become presbyteras, and our highest office, that of a Monk or Nun tonsured in the Great Schema, is given to both monks and nuns, since they live an angelic life, and interestingly those who become Bishops are not elligible to receive the Great Schema, because the Great Schema requires a continual focus on prayer that a bishop would not have time for; for the same reason bishops must be celibate and are usually monastic, but ones who make a different sacrifice to Christ, in the case of those denominations which validly ordained women, I do have friends who are female clergy, and I believe they should be respected as clergy within their specific denominations.

Liturgist: “No, because the Old Testament is to be interpreted, as a general exegetical principle, using the New, and also in accordance with Church Tradition.”

The Old Testament is to be interpreted by understanding each book in the context of the time it was composed, and what it meant to the original target audience it was intended for.

Liturgist: “I do have friends who are female clergy, and I believe they should be respected as clergy within their specific denominations.”

I am glad to hear that.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
14,797
7,791
50
The Wild West
✟712,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The Old Testament is to be interpreted by understanding each book in the context of the time it was composed, and what it meant to the original target audience it was intended for.

Not according to our Lord in the Gospel According to Luke, when he reveals at the end to the disciples that all the books of the law and the prophets are Christological prophecy.

The problem with your hyper-Antiochian hermeneutic is that it will produce historical-contextual interpretations that lack theological or Christological significance. What we see the most important Church Fathers like St. Athanasius, the Cappadocians and St. John Chrysostom use is an Alexandrian hermeneutic focused on extracting the Christological, typological prophecy with a minimal Antiochian historical exoteric reference, enough to provide needed cultural context but not to the extent that a pursuit for historical, often inaccurate interpretations overrides the meaning of the work as a prophecy of the Incarnation of the Word.

Thus, it is a point of New Testament doctrine, according to the Gospel of St. Luke the Evangelist, that the Old Testament is Christological prophecy, and therefore it is correct to say the New Testament interprets the Old, particularly in light of 2 Peter 1:20 and numerous instances in the New Testament of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees misinterpreting the Old Testament. And given how far removed we are from even Second Temple Judaism, trying to interpret the Old Testament according to the original “audience”, to be more precise, religious community of worship it was intended for as a work of prophecy and religious obedience, is effectively impossible, and also irrelevant from an ecclesiastical perspective.

Indeed such an endeavor reminds me of the futile attempts of some liberal scholars to extract a narrative of “the historical Jesus” apart from the ancient Christian church and various heretical emanationist-dualist-docetic sects that provide the only detailed (and mutually contradictory) accounts of His life, which is why despite the arguments of the likes of Robert W. Funk, Hal Taussig and Karen King to the contrary, various apocrypha never recognized as canonical by any orthodox Christian church such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, etc, are of no value other than as a means of confirming the accuracy of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, St. John of Damascus and other ancient heresiologists, who it turns out were actually telling the truth, which should not come as a surprise for these same men have been properly venerated for their holiness since antiquity.
 
Upvote 0

jas3

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2023
1,117
813
The South
✟78,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You are confusing the eighteenth century Methodists with modern Methodists.

Here are a few more examples of early female preachers and missionaries, quoted from a much longer list.

Rather, you are confusing "women who serve as ministers" (your original phrase) with women who serve as non-ordained missionaries or whom modern Methodists call "preachers" in the loosest sense of the word to avoid acknowledging that there were no women ordained as ministers in Methodism until the latter half of the 20th century.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Ohorseman

Here am I....
Oct 15, 2007
352
119
USA
Visit site
✟45,261.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jas3: “...enabling no-fault divorce and remarriage, ordaining remarried men and women, ordaining homosexuals, performing same-sex "weddings," allowing clerical polygamy, and the loss of millions of members as the denomination collapses?”

You are confusing the eighteenth century Methodists with modern Methodists.

Here are a few more examples of early female preachers and missionaries, quoted from a much longer list.

1827: Sojourner Truth
“Isabella Bomefree, a slave who later changes her name to Sojourner Truth, is emancipated when slavery is abolished in New York State. That same year, she co-founds Kingston Methodist Church. In 1843, she feels "called in the spirit" and begins to travel and preach. She becomes involved in the abolitionist movement, and her public speaking combines her religious faith with her experiences as a slave.”

1837
“Ann Wilkins is appointed missionary to Liberia by the Methodist Episcopal Missionary Society.”

1856
“Clementina Rowe Butler and her husband William arrive as the first Methodist Episcopal Church missionaries to India. In 1872, they establish a Methodist Episcopal mission in Mexico.”

As far as I know, nothing but good came of these female preachers and missionaries.

Source
Timeline of Women in Methodism | UMC.org
But notice what is downstream from this, no matter how far.

“Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts”.

C. S. Lewis wrote that, and he had a demon saying it. I am not suggesting that a woman preacher or a man that listens to one is going to hell. No. But it is out of order, counter to the scriptures & church teaching, and a man who submits to a woman's teaching becomes effeminate to varying degrees, and it is better to avoid the practice. The Bible describes reality, and just like the scriptures, reality shows us that men need other men to show them how to be men. It's just a fact. Men need to read & understand the Bible in the way that reflects our God-given identities. God made us wonderfully different and we should accept that, and ignore the lies of the woke Western culture on this issue. And women should do likewise. Only a man can be a father & only a woman can be a mother - these are different roles that we naturally embody because of how the Lord made us, and it is reflected in how we both teach and learn.

Digging into church history and finding anomalies of women preaching to men does not mean we should make the practice normative. I am confident that a gay man has preached before, but this does not mean we lift this up as an example and start having gay preachers. Some of the logic I see here in this forum is horrendous, and disobedient to the scriptures and church teaching.

I won't comply with these woke ways of a woke church and recommend that other men have a backbone and do the same, even if that means you leave "Deborah" churches like UMC, like I did. Don't be a Barak.

Adam.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,452
1,302
72
Sebring, FL
✟807,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
But notice what is downstream from this, no matter how far.

“Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts”.

C. S. Lewis wrote that, and he had a demon saying it. I am not suggesting that a woman preacher or a man that listens to one is going to hell. No. But it is out of order, counter to the scriptures & church teaching, and a man who submits to a woman's teaching becomes effeminate to varying degrees, and it is better to avoid the practice. The Bible describes reality, and just like the scriptures, reality shows us that men need other men to show them how to be men. It's just a fact. Men need to read & understand the Bible in the way that reflects our God-given identities. God made us wonderfully different and we should accept that, and ignore the lies of the woke Western culture on this issue. And women should do likewise. Only a man can be a father & only a woman can be a mother - these are different roles that we naturally embody because of how the Lord made us, and it is reflected in how we both teach and learn.

Digging into church history and finding anomalies of women preaching to men does not mean we should make the practice normative. I am confident that a gay man has preached before, but this does not mean we lift this up as an example and start having gay preachers. Some of the logic I see here in this forum is horrendous, and disobedient to the scriptures and church teaching.

I won't comply with these woke ways of a woke church and recommend that other men have a backbone and do the same, even if that means you leave "Deborah" churches like UMC, like I did. Don't be a Barak.

There is something that you are overlooking when you quote Corinthians 14 on requiring women to be silent.

My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed
me that there are quarrels among you.
I Corinthians 1:11 NIV


Chloe was a woman, a member of the church at Corinth. She must have been at least middle aged, and she probably had married sons and daughters, and possibly grandchildren apparently in the same church. Paul had visited Corinth and probably met Chloe while he was there. Chloe wrote to Paul, and Paul wrote to the church at Corinth. This is where the books of I & II Corinthians came from. Scholars believe that Paul wrote four letters to Corinth, which have been condensed into the two that we have.

Should Chloe have remained silent about the difficulties in the church at Corinth? Paul did not tell her to submit to the Bishop or the elders of the church. He did not tell her to leave running the church to the menfolk. Instead, Paul took Chloe to be a reliable and honest witness to events at Corinth, and controversies that needed to be addressed.

Besides writing four letters to Corinth in response, Paul visited Corinth a second time, and possibly a third. He also sent Timothy and Titus there at different times.

In length, I & II Corinthians is almost as long as Romans, and longer than any other epistle. It looks like Chloe’s letter, or letters, to Paul had a considerable impact on the contents of the New Testament as we know it today.

Before saying that Corinthians orders women to be silent, you should consider that we would not have I & II Corinthians if Chloe had been silent. She was right to take her concerns to an Apostle.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,452
1,302
72
Sebring, FL
✟807,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Rather, you are confusing "women who serve as ministers" (your original phrase) with women who serve as non-ordained missionaries or whom modern Methodists call "preachers" in the loosest sense of the word to avoid acknowledging that there were no women ordained as ministers in Methodism until the latter half of the 20th century.

I can see no reason that women functioning as preachers and missionaries should not be ordained. Those who do the job should get the title.

Take the case of Sojourner Truth, who co-founded the Kingston Methodist Church. If she can found a church she can certainly preach there.
 
Upvote 0

Ohorseman

Here am I....
Oct 15, 2007
352
119
USA
Visit site
✟45,261.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is something that you are overlooking when you quote Corinthians 14 on requiring women to be silent.

My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed
me that there are quarrels among you.
I Corinthians 1:11 NIV
First of all, as I understand it Paul is instructing women to be silent in 1 Cor. 14 concerning the judging of prophecy. There are those that think Paul is referring to more, and it makes sense to error on the side of caution. Even so, my position is that the silence only relates to judging prophecy, due to the verses prior to the instruction to be silent in the church, as well as Paul referring to the Law. Do a study on Deuteronomy 19:17 - “two men shall stand”, & study Judges 4 & 5. Learn what this is about from the Jewish perspective, and in that you know what Paul was referring to when he wrote “law” in 1 Cor. 14.

MOREOVER, in 1 Cor. 11:1-16 Paul teaches that a woman can pray (speak to God) and prophecy (speak for God) in church when she covers her head. Look at all the headship verses, about 10 of them in the NT. Western woke egalitarian programming keeps us from holding all of these in our minds, or maybe its demons. I get it, because it took me a few years to break out of following the herd on these issues. They are here: 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 1 Corinthians 14:31-38, 1 Timothy 2:8–15, 1 Timothy 3:1-12, Titus 1:5-9, Titus 2:2-5, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-21, 1 Peter 3: 1-6, Matthew 19:4-6

Chloe was a woman, a member of the church at Corinth. She must have been at least middle aged, and she probably had married sons and daughters, and possibly grandchildren apparently in the same church. Paul had visited Corinth and probably met Chloe while he was there. Chloe wrote to Paul, and Paul wrote to the church at Corinth. This is where the books of I & II Corinthians came from. Scholars believe that Paul wrote four letters to Corinth, which have been condensed into the two that we have.
That's a lot of conjecture about Chloe. But okay. Paul wrote that "it has been reported to me by Chloe's people ". Yet, you say Chloe wrote letters. I should believe Paul over you. No offense. And scholars today believe this and that, all kinds of wild and heretical things. Lets listen to Paul.

Should Chloe have remained silent about the difficulties in the church at Corinth? Paul did not tell her to submit to the Bishop or the elders of the church. He did not tell her to leave running the church to the menfolk. Instead, Paul took Chloe to be a reliable and honest witness to events at Corinth, and controversies that needed to be addressed.
Well, maybe she did remain silent, since Paul wrote that her people reported. That is indeed what is written. You are just making things up, brother. Seriously.

Besides writing four letters to Corinth in response, Paul visited Corinth a second time, and possibly a third. He also sent Timothy and Titus there at different times.

In length, I & II Corinthians is almost as long as Romans, and longer than any other epistle. It looks like Chloe’s letter, or letters, to Paul had a considerable impact on the contents of the New Testament as we know it today.
There is no evidence that Chloe wrote a "letter, or letters". Again, you are making things up. And to write that these letters that Chloe did not actually write had "a considerable impact on the NT"...you are just pulling that out of nowhere. I don't know why.

Before saying that Corinthians orders women to be silent, you should consider that we would not have I & II Corinthians if Chloe had been silent. She was right to take her concerns to an Apostle.
Again, it is not my understanding of the scriptures that women have to be silent. Again, 1 Cor. 16 is proof. Additionally, women should not teach men - OR a more accurate way to state that is, men should not sit under a woman teacher. The responsibility is on the man, and if he does it is a shame.

Where did you get all your information from... because it is not in 1 Cor. 1:11 ???

Maybe you are referring to some woke egalitarian commentaries. If so, maybe you should stop looking at those.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,452
1,302
72
Sebring, FL
✟807,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
We should not just look at words (2 Timothy 2:14) nor focus only on a verse but look at the whole of the scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17 & 2 Peter 3:16).

1 Cor. 14:29-35 explains it. This is about prophecy. Speaking it. Weighing it. Judging it. Verse 32 points out that prophets are subject to prophets, and so it is the prophets themselves that do this.

Your shared verse, 1 John 4:1, instructs the same thing when it tells us that prophecy is be tested. This passage in 1 John does not give details on how this should be done, but based on 1 Cor. 11 & 1 Cor. 14 we should understand that the prophets under authority do the testing… and not just any believer that might be new to the faith & not yet grounded in the scriptures.

In 1 Cor. 14: 33-35 we learn that women should not do this and should be silent, as Paul wrote down three times here, for the call of headship is on the man. Now, in this very same letter, in 1 Cor. 11, Paul wrote that a woman can prophesy and pray, but her head must be covered, and he explains why in verses 1-16, also being about headship.

Indeed it is a shame for women to judge prophecy, but the shame is on the men, because it exposes our disobedience. Just like Deborah exposed the sinfulness of Israel.



Seriously, as if unmarried women are above those poor women under the yoke of marriage . Feminist pride is just oozing out of that idea. And Paul does address it, many times. And so does Peter. Woke interpretations of the Bible will have you believing that only married women are under headship, whereas the church has no such guidelines. This allows for girl bosses in the church you see. And Paul does address the question of whether an educated woman can preach a sermon. She can indeed, but it should be to other women or children. Men sitting under the teaching of women malforms them, makes them effeminate in their thinking, understanding, and disposition to varying degrees & should be avoided if at all possible.

It will help to read all 10 headship verses together and try to understand them holistically, and see how they fit together and complement each other. It takes time, because here in the West the woke teachers have broken them apart and dismantled their true meanings one by one, and convinced the majority over the last 50 years. It’s time to break out of the woke matrix that has taken over post feminist and sexual revolution of the 1960’s. Pray. Fast. Ask the Lord to open your eyes to the truth. It will take time.

1 Corinthians 11:1-16
1 Corinthians 14:31-38
1 Timothy 2:8–15
1 Timothy 3:1-12
Titus 1:5-9
Titus 2:2-5
Ephesians 5:22-33
Colossians 3:18-21
1 Peter 3: 1-6
Matthew 19:4-6

Blessings be upon you. I call this one The Good Shepherd - thy rod & thy staff, they comfort me.

But notice what is downstream from this, no matter how far.

“Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts”.

C. S. Lewis wrote that, and he had a demon saying it. I am not suggesting that a woman preacher or a man that listens to one is going to hell. No. But it is out of order, counter to the scriptures & church teaching, and a man who submits to a woman's teaching becomes effeminate to varying degrees, and it is better to avoid the practice. The Bible describes reality, and just like the scriptures, reality shows us that men need other men to show them how to be men. It's just a fact. Men need to read & understand the Bible in the way that reflects our God-given identities. God made us wonderfully different and we should accept that, and ignore the lies of the woke Western culture on this issue. And women should do likewise. Only a man can be a father & only a woman can be a mother - these are different roles that we naturally embody because of how the Lord made us, and it is reflected in how we both teach and learn.

Digging into church history and finding anomalies of women preaching to men does not mean we should make the practice normative. I am confident that a gay man has preached before, but this does not mean we lift this up as an example and start having gay preachers. Some of the logic I see here in this forum is horrendous, and disobedient to the scriptures and church teaching.

I won't comply with these woke ways of a woke church and recommend that other men have a backbone and do the same, even if that means you leave "Deborah" churches like UMC, like I did. Don't be a Barak.

I’m glad to see that you have been reading C.S. Lewis

Ohorseman: “Men sitting under the teaching of women malforms them, makes them effeminate in their thinking, understanding, and disposition to varying degrees & should be avoided if at all possible.”

Ohorseman: “But it is out of order, counter to the scriptures & church teaching, and a man who submits to a woman's teaching becomes effeminate to varying degrees, and it is better to avoid the practice.”

By the same logic, a woman who “submits” to a man’s teaching becomes defeminized. We know this isn’t true.


Ohorseman: “It’s time to break out of the woke matrix that has taken over post feminist and sexual revolution of the 1960’s.”

Ohorseman: “I won't comply with these woke ways of a woke church and recommend that other men have a backbone and do the same.”

You may have me mixed up with someone else. I am not advocating a “woke church.” Actually, I avoid the term “woke” because it is so vague.

Years ago, I was a member of the Moravian Church, and our pastor had held that position for over a decade. Suddenly, without much warning, he started saying things like, “God loves gay people,” from the pulpit. He may have said similar things to small classes but he had never said it to the whole church. There is some truth to that but to say it without any explanations or qualifications is to ignore Christian morality. In the same way, to say “God loves adulterers,” is partly true, but for a pastor to say this without explaining that God does not endorse sin would be dangerous.

I considered the situation and prayed about it and finally decided that I had no alternative. I wrote a letter to the Board of the church reminding them that he had said this. I pointed out that this cannot be reconciled with sexual morality and said that the pastor should not be promoting homosexuality from the pulpit. The pastor called me in for a meeting, which accomplished nothing. Then he convened the Board and had them throw me out of the church. (It was actually a little messier than that.)

I am passing this along because you seem to think that because I support women pastors, then I am for all things “woke,” which is far from the truth.

 
Upvote 0

jas3

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2023
1,117
813
The South
✟78,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I can see no reason that women functioning as preachers and missionaries should not be ordained. Those who do the job should get the title.
And you're entitled to that opinion, I guess. But I'm glad to see you've given up trying to defend the silly idea that John Wesley or any Methodist denomination ordained women prior to 1956.
 
Upvote 0

Ohorseman

Here am I....
Oct 15, 2007
352
119
USA
Visit site
✟45,261.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
By the same logic, a woman who “submits” to a man’s teaching becomes defeminized. We know this isn’t true.
That's incorrect, brother. Both men and women submit to the overseer or deacon, as both are called to do by the scriptures. This does not bruise their identities as male and female.

You may have me mixed up with someone else. I am not advocating a “woke church.” Actually, I avoid the term “woke” because it is so vague.
Woke is all of it. The gay pride came into the church riding on the back of feminist pride. We ignored or re-interpreted the scriptures so as to allow for women pastors, and this set a pattern that gay pride follows. With all the breakdown in scriptures, along comes a lady priest doing a marriage ceremony or blessing for two dudes, & one of the dudes has fake breasts and dresses like a girl. A woman being pastor of a church is being woke.
Years ago, I was a member of the Moravian Church, and our pastor had held that position for over a decade. Suddenly, without much warning, he started saying things like, “God loves gay people,” from the pulpit. He may have said similar things to small classes but he had never said it to the whole church. There is some truth to that but to say it without any explanations or qualifications is to ignore Christian morality. In the same way, to say “God loves adulterers,” is partly true, but for a pastor to say this without explaining that God does not endorse sin would be dangerous.

I considered the situation and prayed about it and finally decided that I had no alternative. I wrote a letter to the Board of the church reminding them that he had said this. I pointed out that this cannot be reconciled with sexual morality and said that the pastor should not be promoting homosexuality from the pulpit. The pastor called me in for a meeting, which accomplished nothing. Then he convened the Board and had them throw me out of the church. (It was actually a little messier than that.)

I am passing this along because you seem to think that because I support women pastors, then I am for all things “woke,” which is far from the truth.
Thanks for sharing that. That is a great start, leaving a church that bows to gay pride . Take it to the next level, and realize that gay pride comes into the church because of feminist pride and the effeminacy of men. Your previous pastor is an effeminate man. I do not mean that he dresses a certain way and has a limp wrist, or something insulting like that. I mean that he does not stand and teach the scriptures in a fatherly way. This is why some churches call their priests by "father". It is not an honorary title like Jesus told us to avoid but rather a call on his life, to be like a father, like Paul writes about in his letters. A father corrects. A father calls his children up. He does it with love, but does not go down and nurture them in their disorder - that is a motherly instinct that should not be overdone. Notice that we refer to God as our Father - we do that for the same reason.

If you support women pastors, you have compromised on many scriptures in the process. Your previous post about Chloe reveals this. You are NOT standing on scriptures but on the opinions of woke teachers. If you accept that, you might as well accept the gay stuff, otherwise you are being a hypocrite on top of disobeying the scriptures. If you don't follow the scriptures about headship, claiming that those scriptures were only for those people in that particular time (like the woke teachers say), then a gay man can also claim that when Jesus defined marriage in Matthew 19:4-6, He was talking ONLY to Jews, but not Gentiles, and His definition of marriage is not relevant to us today. So, two dudes can marry. See where that lands.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jas3
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,452
1,302
72
Sebring, FL
✟807,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
First of all, as I understand it Paul is instructing women to be silent in 1 Cor. 14 concerning the judging of prophecy. There are those that think Paul is referring to more, and it makes sense to error on the side of caution. Even so, my position is that the silence only relates to judging prophecy, due to the verses prior to the instruction to be silent in the church, as well as Paul referring to the Law. Do a study on Deuteronomy 19:17 - “two men shall stand”, & study Judges 4 & 5. Learn what this is about from the Jewish perspective, and in that you know what Paul was referring to when he wrote “law” in 1 Cor. 14.

MOREOVER, in 1 Cor. 11:1-16 Paul teaches that a woman can pray (speak to God) and prophecy (speak for God) in church when she covers her head. Look at all the headship verses, about 10 of them in the NT. Western woke egalitarian programming keeps us from holding all of these in our minds, or maybe its demons. I get it, because it took me a few years to break out of following the herd on these issues. They are here: 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 1 Corinthians 14:31-38, 1 Timothy 2:8–15, 1 Timothy 3:1-12, Titus 1:5-9, Titus 2:2-5, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-21, 1 Peter 3: 1-6, Matthew 19:4-6


That's a lot of conjecture about Chloe. But okay. Paul wrote that "it has been reported to me by Chloe's people ". Yet, you say Chloe wrote letters. I should believe Paul over you. No offense. And scholars today believe this and that, all kinds of wild and heretical things. Lets listen to Paul.


Well, maybe she did remain silent, since Paul wrote that her people reported. That is indeed what is written. You are just making things up, brother. Seriously.


There is no evidence that Chloe wrote a "letter, or letters". Again, you are making things up. And to write that these letters that Chloe did not actually write had "a considerable impact on the NT"...you are just pulling that out of nowhere. I don't know why.


Again, it is not my understanding of the scriptures that women have to be silent. Again, 1 Cor. 16 is proof. Additionally, women should not teach men - OR a more accurate way to state that is, men should not sit under a woman teacher. The responsibility is on the man, and if he does it is a shame.

Where did you get all your information from... because it is not in 1 Cor. 1:11 ???

Maybe you are referring to some woke egalitarian commentaries. If so, maybe you should stop looking at those.

Ohorseman, thanks for your interest. I take your point that the full impact of Chloe is not obvious from I Corinthians 1:11.

I will quote John Gill’s famous commentary. Gill was noted for his astounding mastery of ancient languages, which is one reason his commentary is still used today. John Gill was a Baptist and he lived from 1697 to 1771.

From John Gill’s commentary on I Corinthians 1:11:

<< … by them which are of the house of Chloe. The person the apostle speaks of was one that very probably lived at Corinth, and was a member of the church there, and at the head of a family of great worth and credit; who being grieved at the growing animosities, and disturbances there raised, wrote to the apostle, and gave him a distinct account of them, desiring him to use his interest to put a stop to them. He mentions this family by name, to show that he had not took up an idle tale, and received
reports from anybody, nor from a single person only, but from a family of
repute among them; and who could have no other views in the relation of it to
him, than the good of the church, and the glory of God: and what they had
made out clearly to him was … >>



From John Gill’s commentary on I Corinthians 1:12:

<< Ver. 12. Now this I say that everyone of you saith,.... This the apostle affirms

not upon his own personal knowledge, but upon the credit of the report the
house of Chloe had made unto him; and his meaning is not that every
individual member of this church, but that many of them, and the far greater
number of them, were in the following factions, some being for one minister,
and some for another: one part of them said ... >>



From John Gill’s commentary on I Corinthians 16:17

<< Ver. 17. I am glad of the coming of Stephanas, and Fortunatus, and
Achaicus,
.... Who very probably were those of the household of Chloe,

mentioned in 1Co 1:11, who came either of their own accord, or were sent as
messengers from the church at Corinth to the apostle; who was glad to see
them, one of them being baptized by him, and perhaps all of them converted
under his ministry: however, they were believers in Christ, if not ministers of
the Gospel, which seems very probable. >>
 
Upvote 0