Woman who preaches in Church

[stevevw]

Preaching in church is about the Bible, a biblical point of view is the only relevant one. This is what people who preach in church need:

“Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep." John 21-17 NIV

What I was talking about in the particular context of church leadership was not about just preaching the bible. Its about leading the church as the verse says "Feed my sheep". Shephards lead their sheep to greener pastures and keep them safe. This is why Christ said in Mathew 10:16 "I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves"

 

[Strong in Him]

Like I mentioned in the Pagan world the gods were physical and powerful because this was part of nature. God used His people to display His power over other gods. This is what scared them and caused them to back down.

There ARE no other gods. Yes, people believed that there were and gave them names like Baal or Molech, but they weren't real.
That was the whole point of Elijah's challenge to Ahab and challenge on Mt Carmel. Baal was thought the be the god of the weather; Elijah pronounced that there would be a drought and it would not rain again til he said so. He also issued the challenge on Mt Carmel, that a sacrifice would be offered and the true god was the one who answered with fire. (He soaked his sacrifice in water for more effect.)
It wasn't that the god Baal was cowering in a corner with Yahweh saying " you need to give up"; it could be clearly seen that, if Baal existed at all, he had no power.

GOD created the heavens and the earth; there was no other god besides God.

 

[stevevw]

No.
I'm sorry, I know this was a day or so ago and was not addressed to me - but, no.

i) Nothing in Christian service is, or should be about "rising to the top". Jesus said that whoever is first will be last, and the last first. He also said that anyone who wants to be great in the kingdom, should be the servant of all.

Ok yes you are right in that sense and all the great people of God were really oridinary people, nothing special. But I am not just talking about this but how God also uses our natural traits as well.

King David beat massive odds as a boy to defeat Goliath. But he also went on to become a mighty war warrior defeating the Philsitines. Thats because men were more suited for battle. But David being such a great warrior and having power more than anyone realised his human weakness and bowed to God.

ii) preaching is not a sign that a person has "risen to the top". For one thing, there are lay preachers who are not ordained. For another, being a member of the clergy is not about being "top dog." I would suggest that anyone who went to a selection interview and came across as dominant and someone seeking to dominate their congregation, would be turned down as unsuitable.

OK so I think your reading a lot of modern day ideas into this. As I tried to explain earlier I don't mean risen to the top as in oppressive hiearchies or anything mean that is denying people. Risen to the top can also mean they have naturally risen to the top levels.

For example I would say those who want to teach or preach have certain abilities that make them pretty good at it. Maybe thats their reporte building, communication skills, empathy and knowledge. More than likely a combination of these. Because they are pretty good at this, they get good feeback ect they gain more credibility and will be around longer than others who doid not have such qualities and abilities.

For example if someone wanted to be a preacher and they did not have good communication skills or reporte they may find it harder. They may be suited for a different kind of leadership or mentoring. Or they can be trained to be a better speaking. But some are more natural at it than others.

Times of threat against what?

Against satan. Against forces working against Christ, Christains and the church as a consequence. Antisemetism and AntiChristainism has increased as the world becomes more anti God and Christ. The incidents of attacks on Christains and churches is increasing. Just like secular organisations safety and threats are a real and increasing concern.

But not just the physical threats but the defense of the church against actors like the State and anti Christain groups and stopping the infiltration of secular ideology seeping into the church and undermining it.

This is already happening by the fact that progressive ideology has spread and more churches than ever are professing all sorts of anti Christain and bible ideas for the first time in its history. At least in a bigger way more than ever. I thought it was suppose to be the other way around where the church was unlike secular ideology and in fact being attacked for its difference.

The women on the flower rota throwing things if they don't get asked to do the flowers? The people on the coffee rota threatening to go on strike? The PCC/Church Council/Church meeting disagreeing with the Minister which Bibles to have? The organist refusing to play certain hymns?

Believe me in some ways internal bickering and conflicts can be the worse lol. Its harder because theres a lot of wheelin and dealin to be done to keep everybody happy and on the same page. Thats even true of non church organisations. We are humans afterall and even churches can have their scandels. Not that this is a good thing and probably all the more why a firm and fair hand is needed.

We in the West are not under persecution.

You don't think so. God is now completely removed from the public square. The last remenants such as in law are quickly being left behind. The No God and religion will soon surpass Christains. But I think it already has as many who think they are live like non Christains ie faitrh without actions is dead.

But data shows Christain attacks and descrimination has increased in the west as secularism has increased. As we have seen Anti semetism increase as well. They are closely linked as to why these beliefs are being targeted. In MUslim nations Christainity is reaching genocidal levels. Yet there is a deafening silence on this in the west. Every other group is rallied around except Christains and Jews. Why is this.

Hostility Towards Christianity Increasing in U.S. and Europe, Experts Warn

Hostility Towards Christianity Increasing in U.S. and Europe, Experts Warn

Experts are warning of rising anti-Christian hostility - not just abroad, but at home in the U.S. Arielle Del Turco, director of the Center for Religious Libert

washingtonstand.com

Christians Under Attack Around The World

Christians Under Attack Around The World - International Christian Concern

Christians And Lions The world’s most widely followed faith is gathering persecutors. Even non-Christians should worry about that 12/31/2011 Islam (The Economist)-CHRISTIANITY is growing almost as fast as humanity itself, but its 2.2 billion adherents cannot count on safety in numbers. That is...

www.persecution.org

On current trends persecution of the Church in the Western world is set to increase. The Gospel is in permanent opposition to the worldly values of any time and place, but it is clear that there is a significant rupture between the Christian message and the prevailing ethic of the West. “The West,” says Sookhdeo, “is not merely passively post-Christian and indifferent to Christianity; it is now actively anti-Christian and profoundly intolerant of the Christian faith.”10

Why are Christians Persecuted in the West?

Barnabas Aid works to provide hope and aid for suffering Christians.

www.barnabasaid.org

Well here's an idea - how about asking God?

I have and He said to use my God given brain lol and then leave the rest to Him.

I don't know what kind of violence and physical threats you think that churchgoers face each week - unless you live in a country that persecutes Christians.

Physical threats and violence are the extreme end of other descriminations and spiritual forces working against Christainity in to days secular society. Do you notice now how more people are attacked for simply expressing the Christain belief today. Whereas 30 years ago even 20 as it was not as bad as today. But before that Christainity was at least tolerated and before this even seen as good.

Its the cultural battle today where Christains are forced to conform to secular ideologies and if they were to oppose this or even express their belief on this they are not tolerated. The State has gradually put pressure on the church through lawfare and forced compliance of anti Christain laws and ideologies. Otherwise they are ostrasized.

Nor do I know why you seem to have the idea that clergy must be strong, burly blokes with black belts in the martial arts. But candidates for ordination are not usually tested on their physical strength or ability to physically overcome undesirable, or threatening, characters.

No I never describe this as a stereotypical gendered reason. Strength can also by in authority and laying down the law. But ultimately that authority will meet resistence which will be physical. Its not that there will actually always be physical attacks either individuals within the church or from actors outside the church. But that presense is there as part of the authority of the church.

I think there is at least a perception that men and not necessarily big or strong men. But men represent that authority and the laying down of Gods laws. It seemed to be a common theme even in peace times.

You've just said that a person can't preach unless they're dominant.

Didn't I just say that a dominant leader will not be trusted or believed if they are a bully. I think you misunderstand what I mean by dominant. I don't mean in the negative sense as in oppressing. I mean they end up in a dominant position or dominating other candidates because they were naturally better or were more dedicated and like natural selection rose to the top.

Well, let's see.
Moses was an 80-year-old refugee when he stood up to Pharoah and led the nation out of Egypt.
Elijah was a prophet who stood up to King Ahab and killed 450 prophets of Baal.
Deborah was a judge and a woman.
An angel found Gideon hiding in a winepress. One of Gideon's battles was won with only 300 men.
King Saul was a member of the smallest tribe in Israel. When Samuel went to publicly appoint him king, he was hiding.
David was a shepherd boy and the youngest in the family. When he fought Goliath he did not wear armour and had only 5 stones and a catapult.
John the Baptist stood up against all the religious leaders, told them they were a brood of vipers and that God was going to punish them.
The disciples were a group of fishermen, a tax collector, a political rebel etc who, after the resurrection, defied the religious leaders, got put into jail and finally died rather than renounce their faith.

Mighty men and women? Only because they had God on their side, not because they had the greatest physical strength.

Ok your missing my point. Yes there were great women of God. All the prophets and great men you mention were involved on physical altercations. required dealing with and facing down other men. This was not just a spiritual battle but a real physical battle that happened in real events.

If we say that outside the bible it is logical and to a point natural for males to be in these positions why not for God working through His male prophets. God still performed His works in orachestrating this to happen but he still needed to be practical in the context. There were many occassions where physical strength was needed to even make Gods plan happen.

Are you saying that God could have used women to fight the men of evil nations and made their arm muscles stronger so they at east matched the natural strength of males. Why would God do that when He had able bodied men. God doesn't always perform miracles He often uses our natural God given abilities.

Absolute faith and trust in God, confidence in their calling and His power and the certainty that God will always overcome the devil - yes.

Yes but that doesn't mean He can also utilize our naatural abilities. You can have all the faith on the world that God will protect your family but if you just stand there waiting for the enermy to disappear in a puff of smoke that ain't going to happen. . If it comes to it and you have no choice then physical action is what will save you. Whether thats physically defending yourself or running as fast as you can.

I may have faith that God willing I have a successful operation. But a competent surgeon preferable at the top of their game sure helps as well.

And he can call either, or both, to serve him.
He can even call plants and animals - in the book of Jonah he appointed a big fish, a worm and a plant to achieve his purposes.

Yes. But I also think he is practical, We are wonderfully made and we should celebrate His creation for it is good.

God used those animals which shows He can use even certain animals for achieve His plans. The question is why was it a fish and not a squirrel or a Lizard. Should lizards feel left out. Maybe the fish was the right sort of creature for that job and it was nothing to do with species-ism lol.

 

[stevevw]

There ARE no other gods. Yes, people believed that there were and gave them names like Baal or Molech, but they weren't real.
That was the whole point of Elijah's challenge to Ahab and challenge on Mt Carmel. Baal was thought the be the god of the weather; Elijah pronounced that there would be a drought and it would not rain again til he said so. He also issued the challenge on Mt Carmel, that a sacrifice would be offered and the true god was the one who answered with fire. (He soaked his sacrifice in water for more effect.)
It wasn't that the god Baal was cowering in a corner with Yahweh saying " you need to give up"; it could be clearly seen that, if Baal existed at all, he had no power.

GOD created the heavens and the earth; there was no other god besides God.

Yes there were no other gods. But the point is the pagan nations believed in their gods and they controlled the people with this. People were making offerings to the gods. It even got to the point where for example pharoahs thought they were god and the people believed.

But like you say these gods were based on nature which included the physical forces of nature which were about power. God used the pagan belief about physical power being a sign of the gods by showing He was more powerful by showing He could control the forces of nature because that is what they associated the gods with. God used an already existing worldview that physical power was a sign of the gods to reveal the true God.

But as I said this is only one idea about why men dominated the pro[hets and diciples and may not be factor. I don't know as I am only hypothesising based on the evidence.

Maybe there was some spiritual reason why God chose men in these positions. Well there was but that would also require spectulation to some degree. But it seems the Catholics are clear on this for theological reasons so perhaps their position needs to be considered as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes there were no other gods. But the point is the pagan nations believed in their gods and they controlled the people with this. People were making offerings to the gods. It even got to the point where for example pharoahs thought they were god and the people believed.

But like you say these gods were based on nature which included the physical forces of nature which were about power. God used the pagan belief about physical power being a sign of the gods by showing He was more powerful by showing He could control the forces of nature because that is what they associated the gods with. God used an already existing worldview that physical power was a sign of the gods to reveal the true God.

But as I said this is only one idea about why men dominated the pro[hets and diciples and may not be factor. I don't know as I am only hypothesising based on the evidence.

Maybe there was some spiritual reason why God chose men in these positions. Well there was but that would also require spectulation to some degree. But it seems the Catholics are clear on this for theological reasons so perhaps their position needs to be considered as well.

Evidence has to be interpreted, Steve, and moreover, I think you're not looking at all historical aspects which contextualize Paul's (assumed) 1st letter to Timothy. And being that you're admitting that you're only hypothesizing, it's probably better to try to reduce the hypothesizing by engaging the other layers of extra-biblical contexts that surely existed and to which Paul's letter to Timothy was enveloped in, even if Paul didn't specifically identify and write about those contexts in his letter.

Secondly, you've chosen to apply the term "dominant" to men's presence over women in the Christian Church. Other words could be chosen in place of it. Personally, I think other, even more multifaceted historical descriptors can be brought in to more accurately describe the social and cultural contentions existing among Christians who lived in cities like Ephesus or Corinth in the 1st century.

And if we're all honest researchers who want to know the truth, or at least have insights into the best human historical approximation of any truth that pertains to what women's places within the Christian Church have been or what they should be, then we need to do better jobs of applying our historical and hermeneutical tools of inquiry, especially in light of all that we have access to now archaeologically and anthropologically.

 

[stevevw]

So let's pause and ask ourselves; what do we expect a good church preacher to embody? Would it, perhaps, be Christlikeness? Do we expect that that is inherently gendered?

Christlikeness would be a definite. But Christ was not just loving in the sense always being tolerant and not letting people know that Gods judgement was coming. He stood up to the Pharisees the vipers who used religion to twist the truth. He also said

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household” (Matthew 10:34-36).

The irony being that being 'proficient' in that context, and being Christlike, meant being ready to embrace martyrdom. And that, as we have noted, is not inherently gendered. It is not about physicality of the body.

Yes Martyrdom is really a requirement of all. So its more than just Martyrdom. If it was then more women would have been disciples and bishops of the early church.

This may be a tangential piece of anecdata, but it seems relevant to me.

Ah when all else fails bring out the old antedoctal evidence.

Early in my training, I had a conversation with someone who had the job of interviewing people applying for ordination. And she told me that some of our bishops were, frankly, frustrated; they kept seeing lots of lovely gentle pastoral people applying, but not so many gung-ho entrepreneurial, trailblazing types. Apparently one bishop had said something like, 'these gentle pastoral people are lovely, but where are the church planters and evangelists?'

What none of us knew then, was that the Royal Commission was just around the corner, and that dealing with the collective trauma of vast numbers of abused people was about to become the church's most pressing evangelical challenge. I reckon the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing when he called and sent those lovely, gentle, pastoral people; men and women both.

Yes of course but not necessarily in the roles that oversaw the church which may require a different kind of leader thats not so lovely. At least lovely in the eyes of modern day lovely.

It doesn't follow that because men got it wrong and abused their position that now the church must renege on an almost 2,000 year old tradition. It means better men like those in the early church need to stand up. The leaders who rose up and had great understanding to heal the church is a different kind of leadership to one that needs to be firm against the divisions and undermining of the church.

By the way, I think your whole argument falls apart anyway, because it's not true that men are better than women at handling disputes and threats, even if we stereotypically take different approaches to doing so.

They actually are and the science backs this. That is one of the main reasons I proposed this possible factor among others. I wouldn't have offered it as a reason otherwise. I was just applying what happens in non biblical situations to the biblical situation.

Not sure if I already posted the evidence. But I can if you want. Like I said its not the complete reason but may be a contributing factor. Ultimately disputes have the potential to become physical. Therefore ultimately the physically stronger or at least percieved to be will be a factor. Thats not the whole picture but broadly speaking it does come down to this through evolution.

As I mentioned even something as simple as seretonin plays a role in who stands up and who backs down and this doesn't have to be at the point of actual physical confrontation. Even in body language and other signals that are picked up which will cause a person to submit. Even women who are strong leaders in this regard have higher levels of seretonin than other women.

 

[RamiC]

For example if someone wanted to be a preacher and they did not have good communication skills or reporte they may find it harder. They may be suited for a different kind of leadership or mentoring.

In the tradition of Christianity that I am a member of, we believe preaching is a spiritual gift, it is a supernaturally endowed ability to share and explain the gospel. It is granted to whoever God calls. The church is all living sincere followers of Jesus Christ, it does not resemble the worldly job market. There is at this time a vacancy for the highest level job in our tradition, and as is always the case for that position, anyone who looks like they want it, anyone who has been seen making a move to try to impress the team who select this person, or competing against someone else who might get it, should immediately be removed from consideration.

Whoever does get invited to take the role, will have to just say yes or no when offered it.

There is no application process.

Yet there is a deafening silence on this in the west.

Those links you posted to organizations that support persecuted Christians, they are in the "West", that is not silence, it is speaking.

I do sympathise with your concern about Christianity in certain countries, where historically Christianity was strong and now it is getting weaker. I just do not see a solution to that in huge warriors doing the preaching.

I mean they end up in a dominant position or dominating other candidates because they were naturally better or were more dedicated and like natural selection rose to the top.

Joseph - Genesis 39 - NIV 20 Joseph’s master took him and put him in prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined. But while Joseph was there in the prison, 21 the Lord was with him; he showed him kindness and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison warden"

Ordained as a hero for God Almighty from an ancient Egyptian prison cell.

Stephen - Acts 7 - NIV 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him.

The first preacher ever (bar apostles), immediately stoned to death.

Both these men are not forgotten now, Christendom was made out of such as these. They are not war heros.

 

[RamiC]

It's my opinion you don't speak for each individual adult in the thread

It's a simple question and relevant to the topic

Jesus Is The Lord

It is of no relevance. It dismisses the entire question of the OP and turns it into a different question.

This is the OP:

Hallo

i attend a conservative Pentecostal church and last sunday didn`t we have any services.
So i went to another service at a Pentecostal church with a female preacher.
What are you opinions on this for and against?

Timothy chapter 2 verses 11-12 says
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

The subject of this philosophy and ethics thread is can a woman preach, or does 1 Timothy 2 11-12 mean a woman should not.

 

[Truth7t7]

It is of no relevance. It dismisses the entire question of the OP and turns it into a different question.

This is the OP:

Hallo

i attend a conservative Pentecostal church and last sunday didn`t we have any services.
So i went to another service at a Pentecostal church with a female preacher.
What are you opinions on this for and against?

Timothy chapter 2 verses 11-12 says
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

The subject of this philosophy and ethics thread is can a woman preach, or does 1 Timothy 2 11-12 mean a woman should not.

Topic: (Woman who preaches in Church)​

Question: Do you believe that a practicing lesbian woman being a (Bishop/Pastor) in a church, behind a pulpit preaching and teaching, is in "Keeping With Scripture"?

 

[Paidiske]

A person should "get to preach" because they have, and the church agrees that they have, a call from God.
It's not about whether the person wants to, has all the gifts necessary, has an unblemished past, is respected by others, is highly educated, physically strong, a proven leader or anything else. Have they been called by God to preach his word?

Yes and no. While none of these things - an unblemished past, respect from others, etc - can qualify someone to preach, the opposite can disqualify. Fail your working with children check, or the like, and you shouldn't be behind the pulpit; man or woman.

Christlikeness would be a definite. But Christ was not just loving in the sense always being tolerant and not letting people know that Gods judgement was coming.

I don't believe I suggested he was. My point is that we are not, here, measuring people on their physicality or stereotypically gendered presentation.

Ah when all else fails bring out the old antedoctal evidence.

Not "when all else fails." Simply sharing some experience which, I think, enriches the discussion.

Yes of course but not necessarily in the roles that oversaw the church which may require a different kind of leader thats not so lovely. At least lovely in the eyes of modern day lovely.

It was not long after that we appointed a bishop who was also a practising psychologist with a specialisation in trauma and recovery. And her leadership has been of immense benefit. But do keep making unfounded assumptions.

It doesn't follow that because men got it wrong and abused their position that now the church must renege on an almost 2,000 year old tradition.

That wasn't what I was suggesting, at all. I was pointing out that sometimes, in calling people who are not what we expect, the Holy Spirit knows better than we do what the needs of our context are. And that we ought to be open to examining our assumptions about what those needs are.

They actually are and the science backs this.

Oh nonsense. The synthesis section of this paper deserves a thoughtful read: https://www.gcu.edu.pk/pages/gcupress/pjscp/volumes/pjscp20172-6.pdf

Role differences matter more than gender in choice of conflict resolutions style.

It would be interesting to study the conflict resolution strategies used by actual bishops!

 

[stevevw]

Evidence has to be interpreted, Steve, and moreover, I think you're not looking at all historical aspects which contextualize Paul's (assumed) 1st letter to Timothy. And being that you're admitting that you're only hypothesizing, it's probably better to try to reduce the hypothesizing by engaging the other layers of extra-biblical contexts that surely existed and to which Paul's letter to Timothy was enveloped in, even if Paul didn't specifically identify and write about those contexts in his letter.

Secondly, you've chosen to apply the term "dominant" to men's presence over women in the Christian Church. Other words could be chosen in place of it. Personally, I think other, even more multifaceted historical descriptors can be brought in to more accurately describe the social and cultural contentions existing among Christians who lived in cities like Ephesus or Corinth in the 1st century.

And if we're all honest researchers who want to know the truth, or at least have insights into the best human historical approximation of any truth that pertains to what women's places within the Christian Church have been or what they should be, then we need to do better jobs of applying our historical and hermeneutical tools of inquiry, especially in light of all that we have access to now archaeologically and anthropologically.

As with al hypothesis you look for evidence to support that hypothesis. So all the inquirey is geared towards supporting that hypothesis ie exmples in non biblical situations and the science such as biology or archeology ect.

I agree dominant is not the best word. But really I am using the language of those who promote the ideology that male and females are exactly the same and theres no factors apart from oppression that causes males to be in dominant wait, the vast majority being males in leadership roles within the early church.

My starting premise was that regardless of the reasons why males were the vast majority in particular leadership roles. From that I wondered why. So no matter what reason we try to hypothesize it was something about males that suited this leadership role. Something that continued to influence the early church from Christ until today. Well until about 30 or 40 years ago when a push began. I don't think its any coincidence that this came around the same time progressive politics was beginning to influence social norms.

So really I am not even using the bible but the lived reality as I don't think this is disregarded and what ever truth may be for why males dominated I think our lived reality was a factor. Maybe not the ultimate factor such as the theological or spiritual reason but nevertheless any truth as to why men were the vast majority if not 100% chosen in those leadership roles has to be in tune with our lived reality.

THough God can do wonders beyond human capability He works with our natural traits and this is reflected in our lived reality.

 

[Truth7t7]

THough God can do wonders beyond human capability He works with our natural traits and this is reflected in our lived reality.

"False" God's words below are true, he doesn't work within man's traits as claimed, God is sovereign and man bows to his words of truth as seen below

Pastors and Deacons are to be married men, and women are to keep silent In the church

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

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

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

 

[stevevw]

"False" God's words below are true, he doesn't work within man's traits as claimed, God is sovereign and man bows to his words of truth as seen below

I don't think your understanding what I mean. Its not about the bible really. Its about how God doesn't ignore our naturalness. Just like He uses an individual who excels in sports, politics or medicine because they have a natural gift the same applies to our natural gender differences. He doesn't ignore them.

You can't just dismiss them all and pretend God is going to remake nature and peoples natural abilities and put them in people who don't have them. Its unreal. Its a fact of life that when God wanted to make His judgement against evil nations He used physical power and that was best served by men.

This same method was used by all nations and was the way of the world. Women would not have achieved this as its unreal in reality. To say that God should have made exceptions and put into women man like powers just when it came to ensuring GOds plan is silly and unreal. He used men because men were built by God for this kind of stuff.

Pastors and Deacons are to be married men, and women are to keep silent In the church

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

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

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

I am not saying that our natural traits, mans traits are the biblical reason as with the above verses. Rather that God uses our natural abilities. So our natural abilities should be in harmony with Gods word and not contradictory or ignored.

In fact most of those verses seem to support the natural gendered differences. For example being vigilant, being the ruler of ones own house before being the ruler of a church, not a brawler or striker which is about not only having command over the situation but being controlled in situations that may end with striking or brawling.

These traits are well suited in males. It shows that the type of leadership in the church is one that is firm yet fair and able to defend the church with authority and able to sort out disputes without getting physical.

 

[stevevw]

In the tradition of Christianity that I am a member of, we believe preaching is a spiritual gift, it is a supernaturally endowed ability to share and explain the gospel. It is granted to whoever God calls.

OK so the problem I have with this line of reasoning is that if its just a gift, just based on the gift to anyone and no other criteria then why the vast majority if not 100% use of men. Did God only offer this gift to men.

The other issue is say some who cannot communicate well believes they have the gift of preaching. We know that people have a tendency to be like this. To believe they have prophesies and can speak the word of God but are mistaken.

We cannot just say just because a person believes they have the gift that they should preach. Its more complex than that. Quite often the gift comes with the person also being pretty good at it naturally. In fact the person who has a gift is usually unofficially preaching in some way before they become a preacher.

I use to go to Salvo meetings and they let any member do a segment of the service and they often give a testimony or read the word of God and give a little sermon on it. But I think this is different to the leadership of the church overall and ensuring Gods word.

The church is all living sincere followers of Jesus Christ, it does not resemble the worldly job market. There is at this time a vacancy for the highest level job in our tradition, and as is always the case for that position, anyone who looks like they want it, anyone who has been seen making a move to try to impress the team who select this person, or competing against someone else who might get it, should immediately be removed from consideration.

Ok fair enough. I think when they pick the Pope and Biships is a bung fight from memory. Its like politics. Theres back room wheeling and dealing and groups get behind this bishop or that one.

This one works with the poor, this one is a good speaker and another has served the vatican well for decades. Ultimately they believe God is chosing and most of the time it seems the right pope gets the job. The point is though they are all male and this stems back to the time of Christ.

Whoever does get invited to take the role, will have to just say yes or no when offered it.

Which church is this.

There is no application process.

There is in the sense that your church does it that way. Thats their application process which is to not have an application process. But then there are other application processes if you could call them that.

The point is in the overall scheme of things there are different application process to how each denomination believes priests or bishops should be selected. So the question is which one is correct according to the bible.

Those links you posted to organizations that support persecuted Christians, they are in the "West", that is not silence, it is speaking.

No if you read the reports the organisation that is pointing out the Christain persecution in the west is a group that advocates for Christain persecution around the world. They are the ones highlighting the issue because no one else in the west, the politicians, the Woke who seem more concerned with support the ones persecution the Christains have said nothing at all.

I do sympathise with your concern about Christianity in certain countries, where historically Christianity was strong and now it is getting weaker. I just do not see a solution to that in huge warriors doing the preaching.

Like I said its not about hugh warriors. Its about standing up for the church in the less threaten situations that unfortunately will probably make matters worse. But that is what it takes. Otherwise Christainity will be run out of town. It already is. But its the capitualtion of mainstream churchs to the progressive ideology that is making Christainity a rare species. But also a targeted one.

Just like in the early church men need to stand up for the church and stop the infiltration of this ideology. The church should not be conforming with progressive ideology. It should be under attack because it opposes that ideology. I think it takes men and to defend the church against these spiritual attacks that are both physical and ideological. I think these are the wolves Christ was talking about.

Joseph - Genesis 39 - NIV 20 Joseph’s master took him and put him in prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined. But while Joseph was there in the prison, 21 the Lord was with him; he showed him kindness and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison warden"

Ordained as a hero for God Almighty from an ancient Egyptian prison cell.

Stephen - Acts 7 - NIV 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him.

The first preacher ever (bar apostles), immediately stoned to death.

Both these men are not forgotten now, Christendom was made out of such as these. They are not war heros.

I'm not saying they are war hero's. Still I say notice they are all men. Why. And don't bring up the exception of certain women. I am not sure they were ever diciples. Why are they all men. Was it because they were going to face physical suffering or leading up to that they were going have a hard life being thrown around, put in prison, starved, beaten and it was something men seemed to be subjected to more.

 

[stevevw]

Those words do not mention "pulpit" or "men behind the pulpit" - yet you claim that is what they teach.

But they do seem to imply men as being heads over women when it comes to teaching Gods word. At the very least we have the same kind of ideas that those promoting women priest are against.

 

[stevevw]

A person should "get to preach" because they have, and the church agrees that they have, a call from God.
It's not about whether the person wants to, has all the gifts necessary, has an unblemished past, is respected by others, is highly educated, physically strong, a proven leader or anything else. Have they been called by God to preach his word?

I don't know of any preacher - ordained or not - who says that they preach because they were worthy.

I never said anything about being worthy according to human standards. In fact I have continuously clarified it has nothing to do with this. But despite all this we still find men were the diciples and leaders of the early church and it looks like they continued that tradition right through history.

So something about men was chosen and not just a gift as if it was just a gift then maybe 50% or even the majority could have been women. This set the precendent. So if it was ok throughout history and was not because of being worthy or any human made reason then why question its status and change it because of modern day politics.

 

[Paidiske]

So if it was ok throughout history and was not because of being worthy or any human made reason then why question its status and change it because of modern day politics.

Ordaining women has nothing to do with "modern day politics." And everything to do with obeying God's call.

 

[stevevw]

Yes and no. While none of these things - an unblemished past, respect from others, etc - can qualify someone to preach, the opposite can disqualify. Fail your working with children check, or the like, and you shouldn't be behind the pulpit; man or woman.

I don't believe I suggested he was. My point is that we are not, here, measuring people on their physicality or stereotypically gendered presentation.

Why not. We are trying to work out why only males were chosen as priests and bishops of the early church. Something about men was chosen. The most logical was their gender differences especially when it come to defending the church from internal and external conflicts and threats.

Christ said he sent the diciples out as sheep to the wolves. Wolves being the spiritual forces that worked against Gods church internally and externally.

Not "when all else fails." Simply sharing some experience which, I think, enriches the discussion.

Ok

It was not long after that we appointed a bishop who was also a practising psychologist with a specialisation in trauma and recovery. And her leadership has been of immense benefit. But do keep making unfounded assumptions.

Yes her leadership in that particular calling is valuable. But its a different kind of leadership when it comes to the spiritual battle outside and within the church. You just literally said qualifications and personal abilities don't count when it comes to Gods calling.

That wasn't what I was suggesting, at all. I was pointing out that sometimes, in calling people who are not what we expect, the Holy Spirit knows better than we do what the needs of our context are. And that we ought to be open to examining our assumptions about what those needs are.

Yes I agree but often when we do listen to God we find He is in harmony with our natural inclinations and abilities as well as the context for which the kind of leadership is needed. Its within this frame that God does his orchestrating. Quite often if not always its in harmony with the truth and reality of the situation.

Oh nonsense. The synthesis section of this paper deserves a thoughtful read: https://www.gcu.edu.pk/pages/gcupress/pjscp/volumes/pjscp20172-6.pdf

Role differences matter more than gender in choice of conflict resolutions style.

It would be interesting to study the conflict resolution strategies used by actual bishops!

This paper actually supports what I am saying. As it mentions womens approach is more compromising and accommodating. This is good for certain situations but when it comes to laying down rules and standing up for the church males are more uncompromising. Other studies also show women are more agreeable and worry about accommodating everyone.

I don't think its a coincident that the church has been more compromised in the modern era of progressive politics. The reasearch shows that more women are accommodationg of pro abortion, SSM and trans ideology. Society has become more feminised and the emphasis on rule keeping and being hard of law and order has deminished under progressive ideology.

Conflict resolution should be something most Christians understand and especially leaders in the church associated with the congregation. But its not just conflict resolution. A head of the church may delegate resolving matters to someone else. But the overall stand of the church and what the church presents which is about an uncompromised stand on Gods word is something I think men are suited to do.

We see this within the military and other organisations that require strict adherence to law and order. Not that women cannot do this but that men seem to naturally relate to this. Perhaps partly because they are able to ultimately make a stand which can potentially require dealing with threat.

 

[Strong in Him]

But they do seem to imply men as being heads over women when it comes to teaching Gods word. At the very least we have the same kind of ideas that those promoting women priest are against.

Sorry but "seem to imply" isn't good enough. Either God, specifically, said that women should never preach, never be in a pulpit or lead a church, or he didn't.
There were prophetesses in the OT - women who told men what God was saying and what they should do - and women who spoke for God in the NT - Mary Magdalene, the woman at the well, Phoebe - and the command "a woman must never be a leader in my church" was never issued; so, clearly, he doesn't have a problem with it.

 

[stevevw]

Ordaining women has nothing to do with "modern day politics." And everything to do with obeying God's call.

Ok then why question and change a near 2000 year tradition based on a precedent set in the early church. If you say its "everything to do with obeying God's call" then Christs called only men to lead the early church and the next generation followed Christs example and so did the next and next until today.