Women, Called and Serving in Leadership

Feminization of the Church

August 27, 2010 on 4:10 pm | In Biblical Equality, Rebuttal | 1 Comment

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.

My Response to 4 Point Argument Against Women in Leadership

March 23, 2010 on 4:21 pm | In Biblical Equality, Rebuttal, Women in Ministry | 2 Comments

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.

“White Washed Feminism”

April 14, 2009 on 4:10 pm | In Rebuttal, Women in Ministry | No Comments

Because I home school I receive many curriculum catalogs. I just received a new home school catalog in which is a section that displays curriculum and books by Vision Forum. Out of curiosity I stopped to read the sale copy on one of their books, “Passionate Housewives Desperate for God”. I know – stupid me !! I was quickly confronted by these words “exposing the dangers of white washed feminism”.

I wonder if those who espouse such thinking – dangers of white washed feminism – have ever truly looked at or studied the foundation of the feminist movement — before Margaret Sanger, NOW, and their ilk. Feminism has become a cuss word in their mouths – in doing so they have cussed the many dedicated Christian women who founded this movement in their fight to get children out of the sweat shops and to secure women the right to vote.

I wonder if they know that women whom they laud actually fought for the equality of women – women such as Lottie Moon and Catherine Booth.

It continues to amaze me that the SBC holds a Lottie Moon Missionary fund raisers each year — and never confronts the truth that she wrote many letters crying out for the equality of women in the church. One SBC pastor called the this cover up concerning Lottie Moon “the SBC’s dirty little secret.”

I wonder if they know that Catherine Booth’s son-in-law in his eulogy praised her as a “unfailing, unflinching, uncompromising champion of women’s rights.”

“Exposing the dangers of white washed feminism” — NEVER – let us expose the truth of the women of God who fought bravely for the equality of all under God — let us sing the praises of these women who courageously pioneered the way for us.

I’m proud to be counted among such a great cloud of witnesses named as the “white washed feminists”.

Really! What About Deborah?

October 23, 2008 on 2:05 pm | In Rebuttal | 1 Comment

An open rebuttal to “But What about Deborah? Why the Example of Deborah Does Not Support the Candidacy of Sarah Palin” written by William Einwechter on October 2, 2008. This message in its entirety can be viewed at the Vision Forum Blog http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/so_what_about_deborah.xm

Point 1

Quote: “there are a number of us who believe that God has ordained the order of male headship for every sphere of government: family, church, and state. Therefore, as we understand Scripture, it is a violation of God’s law for a woman to seek the office of civil magistrate (doubly so if she is a wife or mother), or for Christians to support her for office or vote for her.”

Response: Is it a violation of “God’s law” for a woman to seek the office of civil magistrate –taking a position of governmental leadership?

God, when He created humankind gave dominion/rule of the earth to both the male Adam and the female Eve. (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28) In creation we see God’s purpose was for male and female to rule the earth together. We find no “law of God” at the creation of mankind which eliminates women from serving in a governmental office. Eve ruled over the earth just as did Adam.

We also find that God did not cease to place women in positions of leadership after the fall of Adam and Eve in Micah 6:4, where the prophet of God says, “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.”

The Hebrew word translated as “before” has the figurative meaning of face – as the part that turns. This noun also designates the top or surface of something. It also connotes the front of something, like an army

Miriam, God says, was sent by Him along with Moses and Aaron to function as the part that turns Israel. Miriam along with Moses and Aaron held the top positions and were in the front – as leaders – of this massive army of Israel.

So far, we see no “law”of God forbidding women from serving as governmental leaders in the examples of Eve and Miriam. Instead, we see God clearly using women to serve as governmental leaders along with men.

It is ludicrous to suppose that we have only the one Biblical example of Deborah to use as our example of women serving in roles of leadership.

God continued to carry out His original purpose of both men and women serving as equal partners in leadership. God continued to carry out His original purpose of women as well men having His authority to rule and have dominion.

Deborah’s position as a judge was not a “one time because it was extraordinary times” occurrence. God continued to carry out His original purpose and chose Deborah to fulfill a position of leadership over Israel as a judge.

Another observation I would like to point out – the nation of Israel who received God’s law and practice the law of God DID NOT find the law to say women could not serve as governmental leaders or civil magistrates. Instead, we find the woman Golda Meir ruling as a governmental ruler over the nation of Israel. This woman is world renown as one of Israel’s most influential Prime Ministers. Isn’t it interesting that those who know God’s law the best do not find that God’s law prohibits women from serving in positions of government and as civil magistrates.

Point 2

Quote: “It is significant to note that the “judges” in the book are not identified with the elders of Israel. This means that the judges were not part of the normal, structured government of Israel, and so, whatever the exact nature of their public leadership was, and it may have varied, they were not civil magistrates; they did not govern in the civil sphere.”

Response: I disagree with your conclusion. Scripture clearly shows that elders did not cease to exist when kings ruled Israel as governmental leaders and civil magistrates. Elders functioned under the kings, just as they functioned under the judges.

The “civil government” of elders did not nullify the judges from serving as governmental leaders, just as their presence did not nullify the kings from serving as governmental leaders.

Point 3

Quote: “Evidence of this fact is seen in the story of Gideon, one of the most illustrious of the judges. After his great victory over the Midianites, he was offered the position of chief ruler of Israel, but he categorically turned down the offer.”

Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, ‘Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son also: for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian.’ And Gideon said unto them, ‘I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the LORD shall rule over you.’ (Judg. 8:22-23)”

Response: Gideon was not refusing to judge Israel as a civil magistrate or governmental leader – he was refusing to be KING, he did so because he understood Israel already had a king – GOD !!

Gideon continued to function as a judge over Israel after refusing to be their king. As a judge he served as a governmental leader but NOT as their supreme ruler. Gideon knew that God alone was the supreme ruler of Israel.

Point 4

Quote: “In fact, none of the men who served as judges are ever pictured in the text of the book of Judges in the role of a civil magistrate (i.e., of ruling as elders, princes, or governors). Or, as Richard Schultz expresses this fact, “There is no clear textual evidence that these individuals ever exercised any judicial authority.”

Quote: “The judges were men who were used of God to defend the cause of an oppressed Israel by executing judgment on the enemies of Israel. Hence, when the text says that they “judged Israel” it does not mean that they governed Israel as civil rulers, but that they carried out God’s judgment on Israel’s oppressors and defended the people from further oppression.”

Response: The word of God says both the men and women who served as judges JUDGED Israel. We can not detract from the function God says each of these judges fulfilled.

The Hebrew word translated as “judged” is a verb which means to “judge, to govern and encompasses all the facets and functions of government: executive, legislative, and judicial.”

2Samuel 7:11 even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; …

The Hebrew word translated as “be over” is a preposition “meaning upon, over, against, by, to, for.” Judges served as governmental leaders OVER Israel.

2Ki 23:22 Surely such a Passover had not been celebrated from the days of the judges who judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel and of the kings of Judah.

Again, the Word of God says those who served as judges JUDGED Israel. The judges governed Israel in all facets and function of governmental leadership.

Rth 1:1 Now it came about in the days when the judges governed,

The word translated as governed in this text is the same word translated as “judged” and means “to judge, to govern and encompasses all the facets and functions of government: executive, legislative, and judicial.”

The judges of Israel governed in governmental leadership.

I personally find it appalling that your thesis’ point is to strip the judges of their governmental function as civil magistrates simply because a woman is named among them. I truly wonder would you come to the same conclusions if a woman was not named as one who judged Israel – I do not think that you would.

Point 5

Quote: “The biblical text indicates that the judges functioned as national deliverers, i.e., they were men who were raised up by God to fight against the enemies of Israel in view of breaking the yoke of Israel’s foreign oppression.

…the hand of the LORD was against [Israel] for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed. Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them (Judg. 2:15-16).”

Response: Those who served as judges DID NOT only perform just the one function of deliverer. If you would have looked just one verse further to verse 17 you would have found that those who judged Israel not only brought deliverance but they SPOKE – as in giving instruction – to the nation of Israel.

Jdg 2:17 -19 Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they played the harlot after other gods and bowed themselves down to them. They turned aside quickly from the way in which their fathers had walked in obeying the commandments of the LORD; they did not do as their fathers. 18 When the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed and afflicted them. 19 But it came about when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their stubborn ways.

Judges in the book of Judges were not only deliverers – they spoke instruction to Israel as a spiritual leader –they instructed Israel to follow the commands of the Lord and to not turn aside to idol worship. Judges were more than deliverers from oppressors. They spoke under the influence of God to Israel as spiritual leaders.Thus Israel followed the instruction of the judge while he lived and returned to their evil ways after the judge’s death.

1Ch 17:6 “In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built for Me a house of cedar?’”‘

The Hebrew word translated as “shepherd” means “to care for, to protect, to graze, to feed flocks and herd, to rule as a shepherd over sheep.”

God COMMANDED those He appointed as judges to shepherd the nation of Israel. These God appointed judges watched over and protected Israel just as shepherds watch over and protect their sheep.

Those who judged Israel DID NOT simply function as deliverers – they functioned as shepherds who watched over, carried for, and protected Israel, just as a shepherd cares for his sheep.

As we read the book of Judges we find these men and one woman did deliver Israel from their oppressors and AFTER delivering Israel from the oppressors they continued to judge Israel as civil magistrates, as spiritual leaders and as shepherds. Thus the word reports, they “judged Israel ** many years.”

Point 6

Quote: “This leaves us with Deborah and Barak. What were their roles? Which one was the judge, or were they both judges?”

Response: The Word of God clearly says it was Deborah who was judging Israel. Barak is not once named as being a judge. Again, I find it appalling that you would try and strip off from Deborah her mantle of judge in order to place this mantle upon the male Barak when the Word of God clearly states no such thing.

Point 7

Quote: “How does the biblical text describe Deborah and her role in Israel? The text says that she “judged Israel at that time.” It is important to understand that the function of Judges 4:5 is to explain how she judged Israel: The people of Israel came up to the place where she dwelt seeking “judgment” from her. What, then, does it mean that she “judged” Israel? There are a number of things to consider in answering this question. Note, first of all, that her judgment was tied to her gift of prophecy. Her judgment was a charismatic function related to her prophetic role. There is no indication in the text that her judging was based on a position (an office) she held in the civil government of Israel; she is never identified as an “elder,” “governor,” or princess. Next, consider the fact that the place of her judgment was under a palm tree and not in the gates of the city, the place where the elders (the civil rulers and civil judges) normally governed (Deut. 16:18; Ruth 4:1-2; Prov. 31:23). Finally, note that her judging was not related to defending the cause of Israel against foreign oppressors by fighting against them, but it appears to have involved settling disputes and questions of law for the children of Israel. If we take the words of the Scripture as our guide, we see that the judging ministry of Deborah was not that of an appointed civil magistrate or a military leader, but of a divinely inspired woman giving God’s Word to those in Israel who sought her out.

Response: If we let the Hebrew word translated as “judged” speak for itself we find your conclusion concerning Deborah to be pure assumption and conjecture on your part. The Word clearly says Deborah judged and ALL Israel came up to her for judgment.

The text itself gives all the evidence that is needed to declare Deborah a civil magistrate when it says Deborah JUDGED. Again, this Hebrew word means, ““judge, to govern and encompasses all the facets and functions of government: executive, legislative, and judicial.”

The word of God DOES NOT say her role as a judge was tied to her gift of prophecy. The Word says she was a prophetess and a judge –she fulfilled two distinct roles in Israel. It is an assumption and pure conjecture on your part to combine these separate functions. Deborah acted in much the same way as Samuel in the nation of Israel in that they both spoke the word of the Lord as prophets and judged the nation of Israel as God appointed judges.

If Deborah was simply speaking as prophetess and prophesying to those who came to her the writer of the book of Judges would have used the word “prophesying” and said “at this time Deborah was prophesying “and NOT used the word “judging”.

The writer of the book of Judges does in fact use the word “prophesied” of one who did indeed prophesy but did not operate as a judge in Israel in chap. 6 verse 8. If Deborah had operated as such – prophesying – the writer of the book of Judges would have recorded the function of Deborah as prophesy, just as he recorded the function of this prophet of God.

The word of God does not say Deborah was prophesying at this time or that Israel come up to her for a word of prophesy. The Word of God clearly says Deborah was JUDGING Israel at this time and Israel came up to her for JUDGEMENT.

You can not strip Deborah of her functions as both a prophetess and a judge in Israel. Deborah judged Israel exactly as all the others who were appointed by God to judge Israel. Deborah was appointed by God to “be over” Israel exactly as all those who judged Israel before her and after her.

Point 8

Quote: “In Judges 5:7, Deborah refers to herself as “a mother in Israel.” There is debate over what this actually means. It could indicate that she was married (or she may have been a widow at the time of Judges 4-5) and was a mother of children. But it could also be figurative, indicating that Deborah saw herself as one who had a maternal concern for Israel. Regardless, the phrase does point to Deborah’s consciousness that her role was consistent with her female gender. What she did for the house of Israel was consistent with what a godly mother would do for her own household in times of distress. It also suggests that Deborah did not presume to take headship in Israel or usurp authority over the men.”

Response: According to John Gill, Deborah’s words in which she referred to herself as “a mother in Israel” were “qualifying her to be a mother to Israel, to teach and instruct them in the mind and will of God, to administer judgment and justice to them, to protect and defend them, and in all which she discovered a maternal affection for them; and as a good judge and ruler of a people may be called the father of them, so she, being a woman, is with propriety called a mother in Israel, having an affectionate concern for them as her children.”

Deborah as a good judge and ruler referred to herself as “a mother in Israel.” I also do not agree with your conclusion that Deborah’s reference to herself as a mother in Israel “suggests that Deborah did not presume to take headship in Israel or usurp authority over the men.” Deborah as a judge exercised authority over men.

Point 9

Quote: “Deborah was not a “judge” in the sense that the book of Judges defines that role; that specific role belonged to Barak. She did not fulfill the role of a warrior or lead Israel into battle. When it was time for Israel to rise up and throw off the yoke of Jabin, king of Canaan, and judge the enemies of God’s people, the Lord did not call or appoint Deborah to fight Jabin or command the armies of Israel. Instead, God used her, as His prophetess, to call and appoint Barak to that position.”

Response: Yet, the book of Judges clearly names Deborah as one who judged Israel and not Barak. Would you strip King David from the title of king simply because there were times he did not “go out to war”with his armies? Would you strip from King David his title as king simply because in the recounting of many battles we do not read of his part or portion in said battle?? Would you strip King David of his title as king simply because he also had a commander of the army who went out to war with him?? I think not!!

Just as it would be ludicrous to strip King’s David title as king from him based on your reasoning, so it is also with Deborah.

The Word of God does not give any report concerning Deborah’s involvement in the actual battle one way or the other. I could assert that she was actively fighting alongside of Barak BUT that would be simple conjecture and assumption on my part. The Word of God simply does not reveal if Deborah took an active part in the battle or not. It simply reveals she was present when the battle took place.

Also, if I follow your reasoning and logic I would NOT name Barak as judge; instead, I would name Jael as judge and deliverer of Israel for it is she who took the life of Sisera and liberated Israel from the hand of Jabin.

Point 10

Quote: “conclude that it is God’s will that men are given headship in the civil sphere.”

Response: Hmmm, isn’t it interesting that the very God you state “gave man headship in the civil sphere” at creation gave Eve equal dominion and authority to rule with Adam, placed Miriam in front of Israel as a leader with Moses and Aaron, and appointed Deborah to be over Israel as a judge.

My conclusion is entirely the opposite of yours. I conclude it is God’s will for men and women to have headship in the civil sphere.

Point 11

Quote: “The Bible also establishes the doctrine of male headship based on the creation order.”

Response: I see no such doctrine of “creation order” established by God in the creation of human kind.

Genesis 1: 26-27 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.

Genesis 5: 1-2 This the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Adam in the day when they were created.

The word man in Hebrew is “adam” and means: “mankind or a human being.”

Man was NOT created before woman. Woman existed IN Adam on the day they were created.

Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

Of all that was created by God only ‘man’ (in whom both the male and female nature dwelled) was spoken of as not being good by God. To remedy what was not good – “man’ as one being – God would separate Adam into two separate beings. One would hold the male nature and one would hold the female nature. What was once one being would be two separate individual beings.

Genesis 2:23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”

God did not create Eve out of dust because she already existed IN Adam. Eve was taken OUT of Adam. The ONE flesh of the original creation ‘Adam’ was now two separate beings – Adam and Eve. God did not take Eve from Adam’s side as a being who was inferior to the male. Eve was equal with Adam while she dwelled in Adam. Eve was still an equal being with Adam when she was taken out from his side.

Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

For what reason do husband and wife become one flesh — for the reason that ‘man’first existed as one being and in marriage the two beings are rejoined together again as one. Man and woman began as one – were separated into two individual beings –and are rejoined as one in marriage.

Point 12

Quote: “If the example of Deborah is used to justify female rulers in the state, then it can also be used to justify female teachers and rulers in the church.”

Response: Your statement here clearly states the “rub” – why you seek to strip Deborah’s mantle and position as a judge over Israel. To receive Deborah as judge does open the door for women to teach and have positions of authority and leadership in the church. As we search the Scriptures we do not find Deborah to be the lone example which opens the doors to women to teach and have positions of authority and leadership in the church. Deborah is but one example I’ve submitted in this rebuttal this day.