Women in the Bible

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler Nally <tnally@iquest.net>
To: higher-fire@prairienet.org <higher-fire@prairienet.org>
Date: Thursday, November 20, 1997 5:48 AM
Subject: RE: Women in the Bible


>At 11:03 AM 11/19/97 -0800, Bro Brad Young  wrote:
>
>>The role of women in the ministry, IMO, should be increasing.  Doesn't
>>a man that's been ordained and has had hands laid on him for blessings
>>and guidance, also have his spouse laid hands on as well to further
enhance
>>his ministry?
>>
>>[Brad Young]
>>Are you then saying that "things are different now," we can ignore that
>part of the bible?
>
>Nope....
>
>>(This part:
>>
>>1 pet 3:5
>
>In context, it's:
>
> 1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands;
>         that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the
>         word be won by the conversation of the wives;
>       2 While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.
>       3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting
>         the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
>       4 But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is
>         not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit,
>         which is in the sight of God of great price.
>       5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who
>         trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto
>         their own husbands:
>
>>eph 5:24
>
> Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the
>          head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
>       24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the
>          wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
>
>All Good stuff.... *wives* in submission to their husbands.


This may seem like I am picking nits, but those verses aren't talking about
sub-missions.  They do, however refer to *subjection*.

Here's What old webster had to say about someone who is subject:

under external government or rule || under the authority or rule of another

There are a bunch of other meanings for that word, but you don't care about
artist's subjects, and I assure you that the prvious definition is the
applicable one.

<cut some more stuff about sub-missions>

<deletia about Shakers, etc.>
>Paul essentially
>said, "Let them that are *noisy* keep their silence and when they get home,
>the head-of-household-male-type (who was silent) will instruct thee."


Heard this before.  Sorry if I didn't really specify that this wasn't really
what I was talking about.

>>How can the man be the head of the woman when the woman is the spiritual
>>leader of the man?  That is *confusing*.
>
>I don't think so.  Her *job* would be to *deliver* the word to him.
>On judgement day, *she* (as a minister) will be responsible for delivering
>and giving to him the things as the Holy Ghost moves on her.  If she's
>moved on to deal with his abuses, she should do so.  If she doesn't, she'll
>be accountable to God for what she didn't do as God moved on her.  If he
>receives the advice and doesn't heed, then his blood is on his own hands
and
>she's off-the-hook.

But here's my real question:  I just gave you two verses about wives being
in *subjection* to their husbands.  That means "to rule over."  Can the
saint man command his preacher wife (in love of course) to obey some
particular holiness standard?  Who has *authority* (I'd say who wears the
pants, but I'm afraid of the tangent it would start =)) in the household in
spiritual matters?

Is the wife in sub-jection to her husband only when she isn't behind the
pulpit?

Paul said, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."  (1 Cor
11:1)

I don't seem to understand how the man can follow his wife and still be her
head.

<cut a bunch of stuff about adultery and the responsibility of the pastor to
deal with sin>

>I think the *mission* of a pastor/minister is completely different than
>the *sub-mission* of a spouse.

But how can the sub-mission of a spouse be in sub-jection to her husband?
Is she the head of him while behind the pulpit and at no other time?

>>Face facts.... there are people that *women* can reach with the apostolic
>>pentecostal oneness message that *men* will never ever ever ever reach.
>
>>[Brad Young]
>>Sure.  Let her teach a bible study.

Can I quote my pastor?  "Shepherds don't bear sheep, sheep bear sheep."  A
woman's soulwinning is in no way based on whether or not she is behind a
pulpit.

>Yeah... she can do that as well.  To me, it's a greater injustice to keep
>women from the ministry when it takes a *man* and a *woman* to become a
>balanced set.  I'd imagine anybody that *never* hears a oneness pentecostal
>message delivered by a female has quite a biased view.


1 Cor 7:8 "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them
if they abide even as I."
I agree that a man and a woman make a balanced set, but i don't feel that it
is neccessary for an effective ministry.

>>Whether it's their softness, their delivery, their personality, or
>whatever...
>>it's absolutely necessary that women be ministers in the church.  If that
>>female is a minister and is married, that doesn't usurp the authority she
>>has over her husband (be he a minister or not).  He still might be *head*
>>over her, but she might be accountable for his salvation if she is his
>>pastor/minister (which I've heard of such a case just like that here in
>>Indy this last weekend).
>>[Brad Young]
>>He's her head, but she is accountable for his salvation.  That doesn't
>grok.
>God is not the author of confusion...
>
>She's not accountable for his *salvation*.  She's accountable for what
>she did with the word and how, and when, and if she ministered it.
<cut some basics about pastoral responsibility>


You just said that she was *accountable for his salvation* in the preceeding
paragraph.  That was what I was referring to.

>>Also..... where did the term *layman* come about?  Wasn't it the Roman
>>Catholic church (or some kind of organized religion) that elevated the
>>platform, raised the pulpit, put them up higher to look *down* on the
>>congregation?  The annointed/exhaulted ones remain on the platform, while
>>the laymen remained in their seats.  Doesn't scripture say *We are a
>>peculiar people, a royal priesthood."  It doesn't say "We are a peculiar
>>people,  Men are a royal priesthood and women are lessor."
>>[Brad Young]
>>The office of priest is not the primary duty of a pastor or evangelist or
>>teacher (the behind the pulpit kind).  Everyone is a priest, because the
job
>>of a priest is to offer the sacrifice (and that makes it all of our jobs).
>>The preacher is to deliver the Word of God.  Are all the sheep shepherds?
I
>>think not.  Are all the trees husbandmen?  I think not.
>
>Eh?  While sheep are being sheep, they also reproduce their own family.
>When that happens, the sheep take on a role of leadership/ministry for
>those they've brought in and help with others.

That would be discipling, not preaching.

>
>Think of it this way ... the pastor/minister is a message deliverer,
>like a postal carrier.  I don't think a single person out there minds
>if the postal carrier is female or male.  They *deliver* the messages
>put into the postal system.  The role of a minister isn't hardly any
>different.  They deliver the message.  If they *fail* to deliver the
>message, then they don't deserve the office of minister/pastor.  The
>pastor/minister doesn't *create* the message, God does (in some cases,
>that's not true - there's some wild non-biblical stuff I've heard of
>preached).   The pastor/minister's job is to make sure the message is
>delivered as thus saith God.  God isnt' a respector of persons.  Gender
>doesn't make a difference in God's mind.

Pastors are much more than "message deliverers".  If Paul told them to
"follow me"  (Paul was the original Iron Mike), he must have been doing
something more than just "delivering the message".  He was leading the
people.  He was a role model.

I'm going to take the opportunity to make my own tangent here:

Do you know what the single thread of commonness that you find in the
psychological profiles of serial killers and mass murderers is?

Domineering Mothers!  I fear for the day that we have a woman run church.
Sorry if that offends you.

>
>In practicality, it's our different biases that determines the
>effectiveness of any specific preacher be they male or female.
>Maybe it's our ego's that won't allow a female to minister to us.
>If a saint is *humble*, they should be happy that God has found a
>minister for them, period!  Ask Sis. Doris over there in Germany.
>Had God brought a female pastor to her assembly, I think she would
>have been received with open arms (understanding the troubles they've
>had in getting a oneness apostolic pastor over there).

And I have said that if it is the best option, then I'm all for it.

Brad