Women, Called and Serving in Leadership

2nd article

I also wrote a 2nd article which they did not publish (they asked for both but only published the one above — no explanation as to why the 2nd was not printed. I’ll post the 2nd article below.

Old and New Testament Women Who Served in Leadership beside Men
By Pastor Dawn Wilson

Old Testament:

~ Eve

Genesis 1: 26-28 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27. And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him: male and female He created them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Adam and Eve together exercised authority over the earth.

In the creation of women God said He would make her as a helper suitable. The Hebrew word translated as Helper Suitable is ezer keneged.

Ezer means “one who has something to offer the one who is in need of aid or is helpless.” Ezer is coupled with the preposition ke and the adjective neged. The preposition ke denotes the meaning of “according to what is in front of” or “corresponding to.” The adjective neged means “what is conspicuous” or “in front.” A literal translation of ezer kenegdo is “like his counterpart, corresponding to him” and is best translated as “a power equal to him” or “equal and adequate to himself.”

Eve was created as an equal and adequate helper to work alongside Adam in unity. In unity they ruled over the earth.

~ Miriam

Exodus 15:20 Miriam the prophetess, …

Numbers 12:1-2 Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses … 2 and they said, “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?” …

Miriam was a prophetess – as a prophetess she spoke under God’s divine influence.

Micah 6:4 “Indeed, I brought you up from the land of Egypt And ransomed you from the house of slavery, And I sent before you Moses, Aaron and Miriam.

God sent Moses, Aaron and Miriam before Israel. The phrase sent before denotes leadership; these three were selected by God to lead the people as they came out of Egypt and journeyed to the Promised Land. As a prophetess Miriam was an equal member in this three person leadership team.

~ Deborah

Judges 4:4-5 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment.

In Deborah we have another example of women holding a leadership position alongside men. The Scripture expressly states that “the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment.”

Some teach that Deborah’s leadership as a judge was only because a man did not make himself available to step into this leadership position. This teaching is based on an assumption that all leadership belongs to men alone. This assumption does not take into account God’s placement of Eve and Miriam in leadership positions beside men. God ordained leadership does not belong to men alone.

Eve, Miriam, and Deborah were not restricted from holding positions of leadership.

Others teach God was displeased with Barak because he asked a shameful thing when he requested Deborah to go with him to war. They teach this supposed displeasure through Judges 4: 9 which says “…the honor shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman”. They believe God transferred the honor of taking Sisera’s life from Barak and placed it into the hands of a woman because he asked Deborah to go up with him.

This teaching ignores vs. 14, here Deborah reiterates to Barak that the Lord has given Sisera into his hands. God was not displeased with Barak, God spoke to him before and after he asked Deborah that He had given Sisera into his hands [vs7 & vs14]. It was not a shameful thing for Barak to ask Deborah to go up to war with him.

In vs. 7 and 14 Deborah speaks as a prophetess and prophesies that the army commanded by Sisera would be given into the hand of Barak. In vs. 9 she prophesies how the individual named Sisera would meet his end.

In Judges 5 Deborah and Barak sing of the victory. Barak was not shamed because the death of the individual named Sisera had been accomplished by the hands of a woman named Jael.

Deborah and Barak working together accomplished a great victory.

New Testament:

~ Priscilla

Teacher:

In Acts 18: 24-25 Priscilla and her husband Aquila instructed Apollos in the way of God more accurately. Together they gave Apollos such excellent instruction that when he left them he went forth powerfully refuting the Jews in public and demonstrating by Scripture that Jesus was the Christ.

Fellow Laborer with Apostle Paul:

Apostle Paul in Romans 16:3 refers to Priscilla and Aquila as “my fellow workers in Christ Jesus”

Clearly men and women are to labor alongside each other in Jesus.

As fellow laborers Priscilla and Aquila traveled with Apostle Paul from Corinth to the city of Ephesus. They were left by Paul in the city of Ephesus. [Acts 18:18-19] In this capacity – as fellow laborers with Apostle Paul – Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside and instructed him more correctly in the Word of God. [Acts 18: 24-25]

Home Church Leader:

1Cor. 16:19 … Aquila and Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Priscilla and Aquila, as a husband and wife ministry team, together lead the church that met in their home.

~ Phoebe

Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;

The Greek word translated as commend means “to approve, to introduce favorably, to stand near.” Through his use of this word the Apostle Paul was giving his written approval of Phoebe and her ministry to the church of Cenchrea.

The Apostle Paul uses the Greek word diakonos to describe Phoebe. Diakonos means “specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess). Diakonos was translated as servant when speaking of Phoebe, but elsewhere is commonly translated as deacon or minister. [1Tim 3:8-13, Eph 3:7, Col 1:23 Eph 6:21] Translators translated Diakonos as servant when it was used of Phoebe in order to not convey her position of leadership.

When we examine the Apostle Paul’s words in connection with Phoebe we find that she was much more than a servant, we find that Phoebe’s ministry was with authority.

Romans 16:2 that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.

The word translated as helper is the Greek word protatis , a feminine form of proistemi. Proistemi means “to stand before in rank, to preside, to be over, to rule, one who acts with authority.”

Paul describes Phoebe’s ministry as the church of Cenchrea as one of leadership and authority. Not only did the Apostle Paul describe her ministry as being with authority he also instructed the church at Corinth to aid Phoebe in whatever matter she had need. To be given whatsoever you ask is a position of authority. Phoebe is a Biblical example of a woman who exercised leadership and authority in the church.

~ Junias

Romans 16:7 (NASB) Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoner, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Romans 16:7 (KJV) Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

We must first address a translation error. The KJV refers to the male name of Junia while the NASB refers to the female name of Junias. The Stongs Greek Dictionary identifies a feminine proper noun as the proper translation of this person’s name. Thus, the NASB correctly translates this individuals name as the female name of Junias.

Andronicus and Junias are another Biblical example of male and females laboring together in the work of the gospel.

Junias’ apostleship has often been denied by insisting that the phrase “outstanding among the apostles” simply means Andronicus and Junias were labors in the gospel who were well known to the apostles.

In order to find out if Andronicus and Junias were outstanding apostles or simply well know by the apostles we must again investigate the original Greek text.

The word translated as outstanding is the Greek word episemos which means “remarkable or eminent.” Remarkable denotes the meaning of being worthy of notice or admiration, while eminent denotes the meaning of being distinguished above others or exalted in rank or office. This does not yet give us the clarity we need. We cannot yet ascertain if Andronicus and Junias were simply remarkable ministers of the gospel or remarkable apostles. We must look further.

The word translated as among is the Greek word en. En is a “primary preposition denoting a fixed position in place, time or state.” Thus, Andronicus and Junias were not simply known by the apostles, they were in the fixed position of an apostle. Apostle Paul describes Andronicus and Junias as extraordinary apostles who were worthy of notice.

As further proof as Junias’ apostleship we have a quote from the writings of John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407). When writing on Romans 16:7, he said in reference to Junias, “Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!”

From the Old Testament through the New Testament we find women laboring beside men in leadership and authority.

Published Article

Just wanted to let y’all know that Fresh Oil Magazine published an article by me on Women in Ministry. ( Their January magazine is devoted to this topic.) My article focuses on The Scriptural case for Biblical Equality.

The Scriptural Case for Women in Ministry
by Pastor Dawn Wilson

When discussing the topic of women in ministry we must begin by asking an important foundational question. Does God express a desire to use women in this capacity?

We will answer this question by examining Psalms 68:11.

Psalms 68: 11 (New American Standard) The Lord gives the command; The women who proclaim the tidings are a great host:

Psalm 68: 11 (Kings James Version) The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.

The Hebrew word which is translated as company in the KJV and as women in the NASB is the word tsaba. According to the Strong’s Exhaustive Greek Dictionary tsaba is the feminine form of the masculine noun tsbaah. Tsbaah means “a mass of persons especially organized for war, an army, soldiers.”

In the above scripture God is expressing a desire to use women to proclaim His tidings. Despite God’s stated desire to use women, the church has placed the majority of women under what I term as “gag orders”. These “gag orders” have silenced the very women whom God has called to proclaim His tidings.

Let’s now look at the word proclaim to establish just how God wants to use this mass of women under His command.

The Hebrew word which is translated as published in the KJV and proclaim in the NASB is basar. Basar means “to announce glad news, a messenger, to preach, to publish, and to show forth.”

Through the use of the word basar God expresses His desire to command a mass of women who are His messengers. As His messengers these women not only announce the glad news of the gospel, they also go forth preaching and showing forth His excellencies.

Women have received a God-given call to ministry.

This brings us to the next two questions which we must address. What about 1 Corinthians 14:34, aren’t women to be silent in the church? What about 1Timothy 2:12, aren’t women restricted from teaching or exercising authority over a man?

We will first examine 1 Corinthians 14:34 to see if the Apostle Paul was truly commanding women’s silence in the church.

To correctly interpret the Apostle Paul’s words concerning women’s silence we must first examine this verse’s surrounding context.

1 Corinthians 14:1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

In 1 Corinthians 14 the Apostle Paul begins a discourse on prophesy and its correct usage in the church. This exhortation was written to the whole church of Corinth – to both men and women who belonged to this church. All were exhorted to pursue love, to earnestly desire spiritual gifts, and to prophesy.

The Greek word translated as prophesy means “to utter forth, to declare, to speak under divine inspiration, under divine prompting to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, or comfort others”.

Prophesy is only done through speaking, it cannot be done silently.

When writing this exhortation, Apostle Paul did so fully aware that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 empowered both men and women to prophesy. Thus, his instructions in 1Corinthians 14 were never intended to nullify or set aside what the Holy Spirit began on the day of Pentecost.

1 Corinthians 14:4-5 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

The Greek word which has been translated as himself in vs. 4 is actually the gender neutral word heautou which means “himself or herself”. Thus Apostle Paul says, “one who speaks in a tongue edifies “himself or herself”: but one who prophesies edifies the church.” In vs. 5 the gender specific pronoun he does not exist in the original text. Apostle Paul’s instructions on prophesy were gender neutral.

To edify the church in prophesy a woman must be allowed to speak and not be kept in silence.

Many have erroneously taught that the Apostle Paul’s instructions on prophesy only allowed women to prophesy outside the church. When we examine the above scriptures we find that women prophesied within the church for the church’s edification.

1Corinthians 14:23-24 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all;

1Corinthians 14:26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

1 Corinthians 14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;

Women may freely prophesy when the whole church is assembled together in prophetic words of teaching and revelation.

This brings us to problematic vs. 34 which has erroneously been used to silence the very women the Apostle Paul has just instructed concerning speaking in the church in prophetic words. To interpret this verse as silencing women you must take it totally out of its surrounding context.

Apostle Paul was not one moment giving instruction to all concerning speaking prophetically in the church, and in his next breath turning his instructions upside down by commanding women to be silent in the church. Apostle Paul’s instructions were not double minded – it is the church’s interpretation of scripture which has been double minded!

1Corinthains 14:34-35 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Some believe vs. 34 is the beginning of a new topic, that Apostle Paul now addresses confusion which was caused by wives calling out loud questions to their husbands during the assembly. He instructs these knowledge hungry wives to keep quiet – to hold their questions – until they could ask their husbands at home.

The above is a valid explanation, but it is not what I personally understand as being the correct interpretation. I believe Apostle Paul does turn to a new topic in vs. 34; he turns to address a question he received in a letter from the Corinthian church. 1Corinthains 7:1 tells us Apostle Paul received a letter from the church at Corinth and he was addressing their expressed concerns in this return letter. I believe 1 Corinthians14: 34-35 is a quote from the letter Paul received from the Corinthian church.

I believe this because 1) the surrounding context of 1 Cor. 14. Apostle Paul instructions concerning prophesy in the church did not exclude, restrict, or limit women in any way. Why would he now silence the very women he just instructed in how to prophesy in the church? 2) the statement “just as the laws says” could not have originated from Apostle Paul. No law existed which commanded the silence of women As a Pharisee he knew the law inside and out, thus he could not be the originator of this statement. 3) An often not translated expletive of disassociation (negates what was said previously) begins vs. 36.
1Corinthains 14:36 (KJV) What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

1Corinthians 14:36 η αφ υμων ο λογος του θεου εξηλ θεν η εις υμας μονους κατηντησεν [e-sword/ Textus Receptus Greek New Texatment]

This tiny Greek word “n” is defined by Greek scholars as an “an emotional rebuttal, an expletive of disassociation, a disjunction, a negation of something preceding.” Its closest English equivalent is “What?”, “Nonsense!” or “No Way!”

Apostle Paul used this expletive of disassociation twice as he negated the preceding quote (vs. 34-35). He reply was, “What, Nonsense, No way, came the word of God out from you?” “What, Nonsense, No Way, came it unto you only?” He did not silence women in the church; instead, he spoke a strong rebuttal to those who would!

Apostle Paul continued this strong rebuttal vs. 37 -38 by saying, “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.” Any who refused women the freedom to speak in the church, would themselves not be recognized.

Apostle Paul did not silence women in the church; instead, he strongly affirmed women speaking divinely inspired utterance in the church.

This brings us to our second question. Does 1Timothy 2:12 restrict women from teaching or exercising authority over a man?

We must again establish the context which surrounds this verse in order to correctly interpret its meaning.

1Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: …

1Timothy 1:3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,…

The Greek Word translated as men is the word tis. Tis is gender neutral word meaning “anyone, any man, any woman, whoever.”

This letter was written to an individual. Its purpose was not to give instruction to the whole church but to Timothy concerning a particular situation which existed in the church of Ephesus – the teaching of strange doctrine by certain men and women.

This brings us to the problematic verses.

1Timothy 2:11-12 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Bible scholars vary in their opinion whether this was a singular woman or women in plural being addressed by Paul. For clarity’s sake I will follow the example of vs. 11 and refer to her as a singular woman.

We learned in 1Timothy 1:3 Timothy was to instruct those who taught strange doctrine. This woman was to receive Timothy’s instruction in correct doctrine with a submissive attitude. A submissive attitude simply meant that she must have an attitude which was willing to receive instruction from Timothy. If she possessed a submissive attitude she could receive the necessary correct instruction in doctrine.

The verb form of the phrase translated as do not allow in vs. 12 is better translated as at the present time I am not allowing or I am not now allowing. While this woman was receiving instruction in correct doctrine, she was to remain quiet, not teach, or exercise authority.

She was not forever banned from teaching or exercising authority, Apostle Paul’s instructions were that she was not to teach or exercise authority until and only if she submitted and received instruction in correct doctrine. She must receive instruction in correct doctrine from Timothy before she could again teach or exercise authority in the church.

Is restoration to teaching and exercising authority after receiving instruction outlined anywhere else in scripture? It most certainly is!

After receiving instruction from Priscilla and Aquila in the way of God more accurately, Apollos went forth powerfully refuting the Jews in public and demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. [Acts 18:24-28] Titus 1:10-13 tells of us rebellious deceivers who were to be silenced and reproved severely so that may be sound in faith. Just as Apollos went forth proclaiming the good news after he received instruction, so also these were free to go forth once they were sound in faith.

Apostle Paul was not forever restricting all women from teaching or exercising authority over men. He was addressing a particular situation which existed in the church of Ephesus – a woman teaching strange doctrine was to be silent until she received instruction in correct doctrine.

Women are gifted to teach through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2:18 women are identified as His bondservants and 2Timothy 2:24 says, “The Lord’s bond-servant must be … able to teach…”. Colossians 3:16 says, “with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another’. The great commission in Matthew 28:15-20 commands all, “Go therefore making disciples ….teaching them to observe all that I commanded you…” Jesus in Matthew 5:10 said, “whoever teaches” and finally in Acts 18:24-26 Priscilla (along with her husband Aquila) instructed Apollos more accurately in the way of God. She did so in Ephesus, the very city Apostle Paul supposedly restricted women from teaching or exercising authority over men!

1Timothy 2:13-15 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

There are two possible correct interpretation of vs. 13-14. The first is Apostle Paul addresses the false Gnostic teaching which taught that Eve had been created before Adam and had liberated the world when she listened to the serpent and ate from the apple. He reiterated Eve’s deception and Adam being created first, and then Eve.

The second is that he addressed the danger of strange doctrines influence in the church. He used as his example Eve’s deception and its influence upon Adam. He did so in order to show the dire circumstances which can be wrought by deception. Deception and its influence must be silenced.

In vs. 15 the word women is added by the translators, it does not exist in the original text.. Apostle Paul is not directing this statement only to women; this statement is directed to all who have been preserved from the dire consequences of the fall through the birth of our Lord Jesus.

This brings us to our final question. Do the requirements given in 1Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-6 exclude women from holding leadership positions in the church?

As we begin our overview of these Scriptures we must first make two important notes. 1) The male gender specific pronouns he and him were added by the translators, they do not exist in the original text. 2) The Greek word translated as man is the gender neutral word tis which means ” anyone, any man, any woman, whoever.”

1Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man [tis = anyone] aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.

Titus 1:5-7 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man [tis = anyone] is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, ….

When beginning his discourse on the requirements of an overseer and elder, the Apostle Paul did not limit these positions to men alone. He said, “if anyone aspires to the office of overseer” and “if anyone is above reproach”.

In fact, only one requirement for the office of overseer and elder has definite male gender. It is the requirement “the husband of one wife” found in 1Timothy 3:2.

Some see this male definite requirement as proof text for men alone serving in positions of leadership in the church. But is this Apostle Paul’s intent?

I do not believe the Apostle Paul intended this one requirement to limit leadership in the church to men alone. If we take into account the 1st Century culture, we find that polygamy was a common practice among males (both Jew and gentile.) The early church, based upon Jesus’ teaching concerning God’s original intent of marriage being one male and one female, upheld monogamy as their standard for marriage. With this new standard in mind the Apostle Paul required men who served as overseer and elder to be the husband of one wife.

This lone gender definite requirement did not disqualify women from serving as overseers or elders. It is simply an extra requirement for men who sought to serve in these positions.

Next, we will look at the requirements for the position of deacon.

1Timothy 3:8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,

The Greek word semnos is translated as men of dignity. Semnos does not denote gender, the male gender was added by the translators. Semnos simply means “venerable, honorable.” Those who serve as deaons are to be vererable, honorable, or of dignity. Apostle Paul did not restrict this position to men alone.

1Timothy 3:10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.

Men was added by the translators, it does not exist in the original text. Those (men or women) who would serve as deacons in the church must also be tested and if they were found to be above reproach then they were allowed to serve as such.

1Timothy 3:11 Women likewise dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.

Apostle Paul wrote specifically to the women who would serve as deacons. Along with being found to be above reproach, they were to be dignified, not malicious gossips, be temperate, and faithful in all things.

In 1 Timothy 3:12 Apostle Paul wrote specifically to the men who would serve as deacon. He again upheld the church’s standard of monogamous marriage as he required these men to be “husband of one wife”.

1Timothy 3:13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Apostle Paul used non gender specific language in his last statement of this discourse as he says, “those who have served well as deacons ….”

Positions of leadership in the church are not restricted to men alone. Qualified faithful men and women can serve as overseers, elders, and deacons.

We’ve asked and answered four Scriptural questions concerning women in ministry. We have established through Scriptural evidence 1) God’s desire to use women, 2) the freedom of women to speak, teach, and preach and 3) hold positions of leadership in the church. We established through Scriptural evidence the full inclusion of women is the church.

Women of God, arise and fulfill the call of God upon your lives!

Feminization of the Church

A debate has arisen which blames the feminization of the church as the source of many of the church’s ills. Feminization of the church has been accused of being the sole factor for why men do not make up the majority of our church’s congregations. Those who bring this accusation state, “Real men find the church to be ‘too girly’ and ‘too emotional’ ”.

Is the church becoming too feminine? Has feminization of the church caused the church to become unpalatable to men?

My Rebuttal:

My real problem with those who espouse the idea of the church being feminized is their response to the question of “how so” / “just how is the church being feminized”. When asked this direct question they often sputter and fumble for a few moments and then come up with the same two examples 1) church décor is too feminine and not masculine enough, and 2) worship is too emotional.

Their response irritates me to no end. They make bold statements about how the church is suffering from feminization and how this feminization must be stopped, yet when pinned down by a direct question the only accusation for the church’s decline they can bring concerns church décor and worship being too emotional. I find their bold confident statements about the feminization of the church to be lacking true meat and substance – lots of hot air indignation but no real sustenance to back up their confident assertions. I find their bold confident statements to just be another “scare tactic”, used in an effort to manipulate the masses through a supposed fear.

Church Decor

Is the church truly suffering a decline because real men don’t like the color pink and its many variations used in the church?

Let’s look at the church décor assertion logically.

Are not church’s decorated exactly like a home is decorated – some may be decorated like elaborate homes but still decorated in the same style of a home.

Do “real men” refuse to dwell in their homes because the décor is too feminine – the idea is ridiculous!! Do we need to “macho up” our homes in order for real men to feel comfortable dwelling in them – ridiculous!!

Men dwell contently and happily in their homes with no complaint of its feminization. Men are not chased out of their home nor do they refuse to live in their homes because their homes have a feminine appearance. I’ve seen some pretty frilly and feminine bedrooms which were shared by a husband and wife. These husbands were quite content to dwell and sleep in these femininely decorated bedrooms.

The decor does not drive men away from their homes; real men dwell contentedly in their homes. If this type of décor truly had the potential to drive men away men wouldn’t be coming home for supper night after night!

The décor of the church is not a compelling factor in the number of men attending church! The conclusion that men have ceased to attend church because of feminine décor or lack of macho decor is absolutely ridiculous.

Worship

Is the church truly suffering a decline because real men are not emotional or because real men don’t like being emotional?

The assertion that worship is too emotional for real men irritates me very much.

The basis for this argument goes back to the idea that men and women are basically created different. Men are logical, rational thinkers and are not emotional. Women are emotional and experience all of life through emotions.

I disagree with the basis of this argument. I believe both men and women were created logical, rational thinkers and as emotional beings. Women may be better versed in expressing their emotions then men, but that does not make men any less an emotional being. Another factor is that men are trained from their birth to withhold their emotions – to internalize their emotions and not let them be seen or known. A prime example of this is the training of boys to not cry because real men don’t cry.

The possession and expression of emotions is not gender specific – both men and women are emotional beings.

That being said, it is NOT a feminine action when emotions are expressed to God in worship or through worship of Him.
Secondly, ALL- male and female – are called into a personal relationship with God and that relationship is an emotional relationship which expresses love and adoration of God to God. It is NOT feminine to express emotions to God – it is human – and wonderfully awesome!!!

Worship is emotional – this does not make it feminine. Read the book of Psalms and the writings of David and other men as they express their emotions to God in love and adoration of Him. These real men were not ashamed to publicly express their emotions to God in worship.

Worship and its expression of emotions is not a gender specific trait – never was and never will be.

Another aspect of this argument concerning worship has been based on worship being ‘too wimpy’ for real men because real men are the warrior type.

I disagree with the basis of this argument as it sees men and women created differently with separate behavior types. I disagree with its logic which sees men as being the valiant warrior type and women as not. To say men alone possess the type of a valiant warrior must deny the Proverbs 31 description of woman. The Hebrew word chayil usually translated as virtuous or excellent in vs. 10 when speaking of the woman whose price is above rubies is the same word used for describing the mighty men of David as being mighty men of war / valiant men in war.

The meaning of Chayil includes “strength, efficiency, elite army, mighty, power, valor, very powerful, warriors.”

Thus the valiant warrior type or the adventurous type does not belong to men alone, but is also a trait of women as seen in Proverbs 31:10.

The conclusion that men have ceased to attend church because worship is just too emotional or too wimpy is absolutely incorrect in its understanding of the true natures of male and female and just what worship truly is suppose to be.

“Women, Get in the Army of God” BWE recommendation

I just wanted to announce the good news to all.

My book “Women, Get in the Army of God” has been recommended by Baptist Women for Equality on their Books Supporting Women’s Equality list.

www.bwebaptist.com/files/Books.pdf

“The Bailer”

http://houston.astros.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=10798761

My opinion on this topic is SHE should have protected herself and NOT relied upon any other to protect her.

Taking the boyfriend to task for “not protecting” seems to me to just take us back to the Complimentarian concept of the weaker woman needing a big strong man’s protection – she being unable and not intelligent enough to protect herself.

If the scenario had been two woman this would have never made the news !! The two women would not be expected to protect one another. The expectation existed simply because it was a male and a female involved (Remember it was “news” even before it was known he had said he would protect her, this fact did not come out until their interview. Thus it was considered “news worthy” simply based on the genders involved in the scenario.)

Maybe we should be advocating taking the girlfriend to task because she did not have an expectation of taking responsibility to protect herself. Instead of expecting to protect herself, her expectation of protection was placed upon a male source simply because he was male.

Just my two cents worth on the topic.

My Response to 4 Point Argument Against Women in Leadership

Statement: Your argument against women holding positions of leadership is based upon these reasons 1) the differences in the biological make-up of the male and female, 2) a supposed difference in the psychological make-up of the male and female, 3) gender roles – in which each gender has specific roles to carry out, and lastly 4) a supposed destruction of society’s stability if women do not perform said gender roles.

My response to your reasoning is as follows:

1) Men and women do have different biological make-up.

Biological differences include the physical features in their bodies – thus creating gender or male and female. These differing features, which are the organs created for the purpose of reproduction, do not limit or restrict one gender from having the ability to lead. Possessing male reproduction organs does not give a man a greater or lesser ability to lead, just as possessing female reproduction organs does not give a female a greater or lesser ability to lead.

Biological differences include chemical or hormonal differences. The hormone testosterone does give the male being the ability to create more muscle mass and thus greater muscle strength than the female being. That being said, I oppose your supposition which has been based on this fact. The possession of “brawn” or “physical strength” is not a necessary requirement for leadership (history is filled with effective leaders who did not have said physical strength). Leadership is not based upon “brawn” but upon the ability to effectively lead others in some stated direction.

I find no biological reason to limit women from being effective leaders. The ability to lead is not based upon the possession of physical strength or physical power.

Leadership based on having physical power over another is based upon FORCE and is DEMANDED (leadership forced upon another, as in being conquered and obedience to conqueror is demanded) and is NOT VOLUNTARY (following the one in leadership is done because of demand and is not willing given.)

Is this the type of leadership you want, one based upon physical strength (force and ability to domineer) and not based on the a true ability to lead?

2) I am left wondering what you see as the differences in the psychological make-up of men and women.

In their ability to think, reason, and problem solve men and women have the same ability – men and women possess the same exact brain, which has the same exact ability in each. No one gender possesses greater brain or thinking ability above the other.

Perhaps your thoughts behind this statement were the supposed more outward emotional expressions of women and the supposed more rational and unattached/not emotional expressions of men.

BOTH psyche’s are valuable in leadership -both the outward expression of emotion and rational thought are valuable qualities in those who lead. True leadership is a balance of both expressions – true leadership knows when each expression is necessary and moves in the correct expression.

In creation of mankind God gave leadership – rule and dominion – over the earth to both the male Adam and the female Eve.
Leadership is not a one gender ability – both the male and the female have the ability to lead and to lead effectively.

3) Gender roles = men are to do _______ and women are to do _______ and never the twain shall meet (or better said – never a dish, a broom, or mop will the man touch.)

From what I’ve read in your posts I believe you are an advocate of traditional gender roles for the male and the female – men are the breadwinners and women are to remain at home as the keeper of the home and the primary caregiver of the children.

How did the traditional gender roles for male and female come about?

Women give birth to children and in the past when nursing was the primary way to feed infants and young toddlers their mothers or wet nurses were the primary care persons of these young children. Nursing mothers remained home with their nursing infants and toddlers in order to meet their children’s need for sustenance. With their wives at home nursing infants husbands became the primary provider for the mother and children. From this the traditional gender roles for male and female were established and became the cultural norm.

Women were not created in the role of keeper of the home.

In creation there existed no division of roles based upon gender – rule and dominion were given to both the male and the female. They were both given the same and equal roles.

Woman was created NOT as a ‘help mate’ (a mate who gives help) but as a ‘help meet’ = ‘ezer keneged’ (Hebrew).

The definition of ‘Ezer’ is “one who has something to offer the one who is in need of aid or is helpless.” ‘Ezer’ is coupled with the preposition ke and the adjective neged. The preposition ke denotes the meaning of “according to what is in front of” or “corresponding to.” The adjective neged means “what is conspicuous” or “in front.”

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon translates the meaning of keneged as “equal and adequate to himself.”

A literal translation of ezer kenegdo is “a power equal to him.” Woman as a ezer keneged was created as an EQUAL and NOT as subordinate to the male.

In creation male and female were created as equals and given equal roles of dominion over the earth.

4) Women leaving traditional roles is the source of society’s ills and and instability of the home.

Both the father and the mother share full responsibility of raising their children. Stability of the home is from BOTH parents and is the responsibility of both parents.

I would like to answer this concept that the problems of today can be avoided if the mother remains at home by the example of my own life.

My husband’s and I chose for me to remain home with our seven children while my husband worked to support us. (We look like the poster family for traditional roles.) We also chose to home school our children – our children were with me constantly. They had my constant care and supervision.

Did my being at home with them have the stated result – avoidance of all today’s problems / avoidance of society’s ills — NO!!! We have faced these issues and walked through these issues with our children.

A mother being at home DOES NOT stop the ills of society from visiting a family.

I am not alone in my testimony. Many, many, many other mom’s who believed like I once did, that if we stayed at home and home schooled our children they would never rebel or never get into any of the troubles of this age have faced walking through these issues with their children. We all found out that a mother at home does not prevent the ills of society from visiting a family.

Returning mothers home is not the answer to fixing the ills of today’s society. The answer to fixing the ill’s of today’s society lies in fixing the heart of man. I personally believe the heart of man can only be fixed through faith in Jesus Christ and by being a follower of His word. The answer to fixing society ills does not lie in re-establishing traditional gender roles.

Semantics and the Restriction of Women

Statement: Preaching is not women ‘taking over’ it is just doing what we should…which is to spread the gospel.

My Response:

The problem lies often with simply semantics – most of those who deny woman the right to preach from the pulpit in their churches have no problem with women spreading the gospel through preaching – they see these two functions as separate entities (functions) which have different governing rules. They do not restrict women from preaching or teaching the gospel in the streets and do not restrict the sex of those to whom they may minister the gospel outside of the church. It is within the “church -walls” that they bring restrictions to close the mouths of women and to limit the use of their spiritual gifts.

They believe the Bible qualifies the preaching and teaching of women by where this act is carried out. These restricts blindly miss obvious facts concerning the 1st Century Church 1) no pulpit and no podium existed in the 1st Century Church, 2) they met in homes and not in church buildings 3) preach simply means proclaim or speak out as does the word prophesy in Acts 2. In Acts 2 men and women of the New Covenant Church received power to go forth proclaiming – preaching – prophesying – with no qualifications or restrictions of place.

Restriction of women preaching and teaching came into the church when these functions became associated with holding power and authority in the church through doctrines of hierarchy. The true function of these words was lost as the church began to cease to operate in true unity and love of the brethren Jesus commanded and instead established a hierarchy which separated the church into the clergy and the laity. In this hierarchy church system these functions (now thought to hold authority) were stripped from women and given to men alone.

Women became restricted from preaching and teaching through semantics – these functions took on meaning (power and authority over others) which Jesus never give them. The simple and pure meaning of “proclaim” has been twisted through semantics to now mean positions of power and authority. A patriarchal hierarchy church system which sees women as only a “complement” to man restricted these now supposedly superior authoritative positions to males alone.

It’s an up hill battle but as we join our voices together, semantics will no longer restrict the very women Jesus filled with power to proclaim – preach – and prophesy.

Why is this topic important?

After writing a proposal for an interview on a topic important to women, I decided to share my proposal thoughts here.

I, of course, wrote a proposal to discuss the topic of women serving in leadership positions in the church.

I started off my proposal presenting how a “gender biased” interpretation of Scripture has been used for centuries to bar women from using their God given gifts and calls in the church.

Which lead to my next point – the Complementarian movement was birthed in response to women who no longer accepted the “no, you are not allowed to serve” and in response to the woman who were breaking through the “stain glass ceiling” in order to fulfill all God had placed within their hearts to perform for His glory.

I briefly spoke of the Egalitarian movement which was birth in response to the “oppression of women” voiced by many Complementarians.

What I really want to share in this post was my answer to the question “Why is this topic important?”

My Answer:

We may think this topic is simply a “church issue”, when in truth it has much larger ramifications. This issue, in fact, has the ability to affect all areas of society.

How So??

Many of those who purvey the Complementarian ideology espouse doctrines that have far reaching effects for all women.

Examples:

1) women should not be allowed to vote

2) women should not be allowed to hold ANY position of leadership or authority over men

3) gender roles were enacted by God – the woman’s God given role is to be a wife, mother, and a keeper of her home … and thus…

4) women are to remain at home as keepers of their homes – working outside the home is rebellion against the God given role for woman

5) men have the God given right of headship or rule over women

Many churches have unwittingly embraced Complementarian doctrine. They have done so based solely upon the issues of women serving as a Senior Pastor or Teacher and a basic agreement with the ideas of gender roles and headship of the husband in the family unit. They have not looked into, studied, or researched the deeper dark ramifications of this movements teachings.

I believe if they did they would be as appalled as I am at various facets of this ideology’s teachings concerning women.

How do I receive Jesus?

I am posting an exceptional jaw dropping insight written by Don Johnson and published by him at the Egalitarian Christian Alliance Forum. I know you will enjoy it as much as I did.

How do I receive Jesus?
by Don Johnson

Warning: Please do not read while drinking a beverage.

***************************************************************************************************

How do I receive Jesus?

Sometimes, I receive Jesus like a woman! What? Sputter, gasp!
Jesus is obviously a man in the gospel accounts. How could I be so blatantly wrong?

I can sometimes receive Jesus as a woman because Jesus himself teaches me this. Consider the following verses from Luke’s gospel.

TNIV Luke 15:8-10 [Jesus speaking:] “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

This is the middle parable of three parables by Jesus describing what the Kingdom of God is like. The first is often called the parable of the lost sheep, this one the parable of the lost coin and the last is sometimes called the parable of the lost son or the prodigal son. These parables are connected not only by all being about the Kingdom of God and not only by being stated adjacent in Luke’s gospel, but also by a descending order going from 1 lost sheep of 100, to 1 lost coin of 10, to 1 lost son of 2.

One of the many insights of these parables is that Jesus is referring to God (and therefore also to himself) successively as a good shepherd, as a diligent women, and as a loving father. We are very familiar with the first and last images, but perhaps not so familiar with the middle one of a diligent woman. Notice that Jesus did not need to use the example of the diligent woman, he could have just as easily used an example of a diligent man, but he deliberately chose to map himself to a faithful women rejoicing when she finds a lost coin.

Will you join me in claiming for yourself ALL the ways to receive Jesus that are found in the Bible?

I (Don Johnson) thank Kenneth Bailey for teaching me the insights in this meditation.

Jesus Sets the Widow Free

I’ve been reading an excellent book by Carolyn Curtis James titled “The Gospel of Ruth”. One of the issues addressed by this book is the effects of widowhood which Naomi and Ruth faced in a patriarchal culture.

In the patriarchal culture women derived their value and significance from their connection with men – through their husbands and in bearing a son to carry on the family name and lineage.

Widowhood threw Naomi and Ruth into membership with those who held the lowest position of this day’s society. They lived in a culture that swept widows aside. They were considered to be a ‘drain’ on the family and on society and as having little or no value.

The meaning of the Hebrew word for widow (almanah) voices the widows low rank in this culture. ‘Almanah’ is derived from the root word ‘alem’ which means, “unable to speak”. Widowhood made these women silent – without voice. Without a husband to speak and act on their behalf they had no voice, no legal rights, and no recourse against injustice. They faced a future which held frightening defenselessness and vulnerability.

Reading of the widow’s marginalization in the patriarchal culture caused me to stop and consider Jesus’ parable of the widow seeking justice from an unrighteous judge who did not fear God (Luke 18:2-5).

As I re-examined this parable my eyes were opened to how truly astonishing and radical this parable was to His hearers – how Jesus’ words shook the norm of their culture and contained the power to knock down their patriarchal traditions.

Jesus’ words in this parable radically flew “in the face” of this culture as He spoke of a widow who had a voice – she was not made silent by her widowhood. She did not lose her voice because she no longer had a connection through a man. I can see the mouths of His hearers drop open in amazement at His words as they elevated the widow from a place of no voice to her rightful place of “having voice”.

Jesus did not stop there. He went on to say this widow not only had a voice, she was able to use her voice to seek for justice for herself – she was not dependent upon a male protector to go before the judge on her behalf. I can hear His hearers gasping in astonishment. This statement was totally radical not only for widows but for all women. Jesus’ words contained the power to “rock” this society as they 1) allowed all women a voice on their own behalf and no longer be dependent upon a male protector to speak for them, and as they 2) elevated the testimony of women to a place of value and worth in a culture that held all “women’s testimony to be suspect”.

We miss so much truth because we do not understand the traditions of the culture to which Jesus spoke. We read the scripture through our cultural understanding. In doing so we do not see the radical statements being made by Jesus through His teaching and parables. We fail to see the “power of the gospel” at work to set free and liberate those held in bondage of religion and man’s traditions.

Jesus’ words in this parable radically loosed women who were held under the bondage of the rules of a patriarchal society. Jesus lifted women back to their original position at creation – equal value and equal position with men. That is the “power of the gospel” at work.

This parable still contains the “power of the gospel” to loose and set free women whose cultures still bind them to positions of value and significance based upon their connection to men. The radical “power of the gospel” is still at work in these nations elevating women to full and equal membership with men in all positions of society.

I can see the “power of the gospel” still at work in this parable as it is preached in the Middle East. I can see the women of these nations, who have traditionally had no voice, hear this parable and find their voice through the power of Jesus’ words. That’s the “power of the gospel” still at work.

I can see the men of these nations hearing this parable and stepping to the side to allow women to step beside them as equals. That’s the “power of the gospel’ still at work.

The astonishing and radical words of Jesus in this parable have not ceased to contain the power to loose and set free. The “power of the gospel” is still present and at work in them.