Menu

Can A Single Woman Be A Missionary?

S
sermonindex

Because of my strong stand against woman "pastors", some people have asked my opinion on whether it is scriptural for a single girl to be a missionary, and personally I am surprised at such thinking. While women cannot teach men or usurp authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12), they are very important to the ministry of the Word of God and to the work of the churches.

Many women accompanied the apostles in the upper room after the resurrection (Acts 1:12-14). Paul refers to the women who labored with him in the gospel (Phil. 4:3). Phebe assisted Paul and represented the Cenchrean church in a ministry to the church at Rome (Rom. 16:1-2). The church was instructed to "assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you." This illustrates what the Apostle Paul thought about single women in the work of the Lord.

It is obvious that single women have been a great blessing to church and missionary work from the first century until now.

Krispy

E
enid

I heard a message by Keith Daniel as to whether single women should be missionaries or not.

He said give the command to bring in all the women missionarie from the mission field and 2/3rds of the missionaries in the world would be gone.

We would leave the heathens in a perilous postions.

Someone has to go, and if the men are too spineless to go, then the women have to go.

Also, we need to ask, if a woman going on the mission field is wrong, then a man not going is equally wrong, yes or no?

We also need to ask, do we damn the heathen by forsaking the mission field, or will God reach them supernaturally?

Let's view scripture honestly.

I deliberately didn't use scripture, but here is one to consider.

Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16v15.

God bless.

S
sermonindex

Also, we need to ask, if a woman going on the mission field is wrong, then a man not going is equally wrong, yes or no?

Absolutely [b]yes[/b].

See, being a missionary is [b]not[/b] the same thing as pastoring a church. Thats where people get confused. Scripture says a woman should not "usurp" a man's authority in the church. A village of unbelievers is not a church. Paul was speaking specifically to the structure of a local church. Not the mission field and reaching the lost.

The question of women missionaries always comes up when I say women are not called of God to be pastors (meaning leading a church), because if He called them to pastor then He contradicted His own command that He gave to us thru our brother Paul the Apostle. But in reality, the question is not relevant to the conversation about women "pastors".

Krispy

S
sermonindex


KrispyKrittr wrote:
Also, we need to ask, if a woman going on the mission field is wrong, then a man not going is equally wrong, yes or no?

Absolutely [b]yes[/b].

See, being a missionary is [b]not[/b] the same thing as pastoring a church. Thats where people get confused. Scripture says a woman should not "usurp" a man's authority in the church. A village of unbelievers is not a church. Paul was speaking specifically to the structure of a local church. Not the mission field and reaching the lost.

The question of women missionaries always comes up when I say women are not called of God to be pastors (meaning leading a church), because if He called them to pastor then He contradicted His own command that He gave to us thru our brother Paul the Apostle. But in reality, the question is not relevant to the conversation about women "pastors".

Krispy


Hi Krispy

I suppose I could take issue with you here, having been a pastor, but don't think I'll bother ;-)

Actually it was almost irrelevant in my situation, because (apart from a handful of women who obviously knew the Lord, more who may possibly have but didn't talk about it, and maybe one or two of the men), the churches [i]were[/i] the mission field!

Also, in the Presbyterian system, the elders, rather than the pastor, normally run the church, and have the final say.

On first receiving this call I was bothered about "usurping authority", which I in no way wanted to do. In answer, the Lord gave the illustration of a mother in a family. The mother has the authority to feed the children - especially the little ones on milk.

I was there not as a boss but as a servant, and had no authority of my own, although no doubt a man in the same position would express more authority than I did or could or wanted to!

In Him

Jeannette

S
sermonindex

I like reading the comments and try to not get involved because you can't change people's minds, they can't hear if you are quietly trying to say something, they usually mistake any inflections that you meant AND I don't like to argue about God's word.

But upon reading Krispy's opening statement, I felt compelled to say to Krispy, it seems that by what was written that there is an arrogance in your belief that "you" understand perfectly what it is that God desires for women and men. But yet I read in Scripture where Jesus told the pharisee's that they search the Scriptures because in them they thought they had eternal life (but though they knew the Scriptures forward and backwards and so focused on the written word, they didn't realize that Eternal Life stood right before them). Are you not doing some sort of the same thing?

I humbly, with a meek and quiet spirit, ask you that if God has called and does indeed call a woman to teach, let alone pastor, who are you or anyone else to question God? If I'm wrong, please forgive me but I don't understand how a human being, the created, can so arrogantly question what the Creator does in these last days.

S
sermonindex

Also, in the Presbyterian system, the elders, rather than the pastor, normally run the church, and have the final say.

As it should be... I agree with this.

However, I will respectfully disagree with the rest, if thats ok Jeannette. I'll not let our differences on this come between us if you wont. :-)

Krispy

S
sermonindex

But upon reading Krispy's opening statement, I felt compelled to say to Krispy, it seems that by what was written that there is an arrogance in your belief that "you" understand perfectly what it is that God desires for women and men. But yet I read in Scripture where Jesus told the pharisee's that they search the Scriptures because in them they thought they had eternal life (but though they knew the Scriptures forward and backwards and so focused on the written word, they didn't realize that Eternal Life stood right before them). Are you not doing some sort of the same thing?

No, I dont think so. I was answering a question that often comes up when we discuss the issue of women pastors.

As for the issue of women pastors my "opinions" (if you want to call it that) is not based on arrogance at all... it's simply a literal interpretation of what is written in the Word. The Word is the final authority on all things.

We can not simply take what is written in black and white and then begin to evolve it into something else because it doesnt fit into our perspective or feelings. It says what it says...

But, this thread is about women as missionaries. Not women pastors.

I see you're fairly new here, so it would seem that perhaps your coming into the middle of a conversation and drawing conclusions & judgements about me without knowing much about the previous conversations we've had here about this. One nice thing about this forum is there are years of conversations right at your fingertips, and I would recommend you go back thru and read up on past discussions.

Krispy

S
sermonindex

I humbly, with a meek and quiet spirit, ask you that if God has called and does indeed call a woman to teach, let alone pastor, who are you or anyone else to question God? If I'm wrong, please forgive me but I don't understand how a human being, the created, can so arrogantly question what the Creator does in these last days.

Simple... God can not and will not contradict His Word.

Whenever someone preaches something that you disagree with, or makes you uncomfortable, do you always chaulk it up to "arrogance"?

Krispy

E
enid

If we are going to make comments concerning this subject, or any subject, don't get personal.

Scripture tells us that women are to be in subjection, Eph 5v22, Col 3v18.

If we say that God would allow a woman to preach, then God Himself would be going against His own word, and God is not a man that He should lie, Num 23v19, Titus 1v2.

When thinking of women missionaries, one thinks of Jackie Pullinger.

I don't think she ever established a church, and if she did, I haven't heard of it.

Let us all endeavour to accept what the word of God says. He is our final authority.

God bless.

C
Chosen7Stone

Please correct me Biblically if you think I am wrong.

I think there is a difference between preaching and teaching. A pastor is a teacher, a leader of a congregation of Christian believers. A preacher is often another word for pastor (especially here in the Bible Belt of the US!), but someone who preaches (in my mind) is someone who tells others about the Gospel...Christ's death for our sins and how He conquered death. Maybe they're not necessarily always called a "precher," but they're "preaching."

A missionary is a person who goes and preaches the Good News. We can witness in our daily lives by our actions and words, but a missionary goes out with the specific purpose in mind of reaching others. It's their mission.

So regardless of our gender, we are to "go," right?

A missionary is not leading a church or Bible study group. Nowadays, they are usually part of a team, that would include a local pastor who would establish the church and stay and teach. A missionary helps bring people to Christ, introduces them to the leader of the local church, and continues to tell others about Christ Jesus and what He did for us.

So yes. A missionary can be male or female, as long as the female missionary doesn't take it upon herself to teach when there is a male to do so.

S
sermonindex

[b]Chosen7Stone[/b]...

Yes! Thats what I'm trying to say.

You're correct, a preacher is what most call a pastor. I know many pastors who have a pastor's heart but cant "preach" worth a hoot. This is why I believe in "elders" leading a church. (not the plural)

God has given certain gifts to different people within the local church, and notice that there is a different gift for teaching, and a different gift for pastor.

Anyway... what you say about missions is what I believe as well.

I thought my post this morning would surprise everyone cause most jump to conclusions and think that I'm saying women should not preach to the unsaved or be in missions... when I dont think that all... and still I get called "arrogant". Sometimes ya just cant win, ya know? :-P

...and people call [i]me[/i] judgemental?

Krispy

I
iansmith

[b]Women in Mission[/b]
by Marguerite Kraft and Meg Crossman

After the last road ended, there was still a 2-day hike to where the Balangao people lived. Two single women missionaries were making that hike. The Balangao, a tribe of former headhunters in the Philippines, continued to sacrifice to powerful and demanding spirits who caused sickness, death and constant turmoil. These women, trained in Bible translation, had volunteered to work among them.

When they arrived, they were greeted by men wearing G-strings and women wrapped in cloth from home-made looms. It is hard to say who was more amazed. The Balangao had asked for Americans to come live with them and write their language, but they never dreamed the Americans would be women!

An old man offered to be their father and was faithful in looking after them. Besides the work of translation, these women began giving medical assistance, learning about the spirit world, and answering questions about life and death. One of them, Jo Shetler, stayed for 20 years, winning her way into the hearts and lives of the people and completing the New Testament translation. Because of this dedication, thousands now know Jesus as Lord of the Balangao.

Jo Shetler, a shy farm girl with a dream, has stirred many with her story. However, stories remain unwritten of multitudes of women who likewise obeyed the call of God to serve Him on the far horizons. Many women do not realize how greatly God can use their giftedness and commitment in situations such as this.

[b]FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS[/b]

The Book of Acts records the account of Priscilla, a woman specifically used of God to touch people in at least three different nations: Rome, Greece, and Asia Minor. Apparently a native of the eastern area of Asia Minor, this woman of Jewish faith lived with her husband, Aquila, in Rome until the Jews were expelled. When they met Paul in Corinth, they may already have become believers. They hosted Paul, led a house church, and were assigned by Paul to disciple the eloquent and committed Egyptian Jew, Apollos, instructing him in “the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:26).

Paul recognized and honored their gifts and they moved with him to the work in Ephesus. Since Priscilla’s name is almost always listed first, the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary suggests that “the wife was more prominent and helpful to the Church.” It is perhaps more interesting to note that her role in cross-cultural service, leadership, and teaching were perceived as so normal they did not require special comment or explanation by the writer of Acts! Her role seems to have been accepted and expected rather than being considered either controversial or extraordinary.

[b]IN THE EARLY MISSIONARY MOVEMENT[/b]

In the early days of the Protestant mission advance, most women who went to the field were wives of missionaries. Discerning men recognized that contact with women in most non-Western societies was impossible for them, so women had to undertake this responsibility.

These women rarely received recognition for the heavy load they carried, managing home and children as well as developing programs to reach local women and girls.

Initially, single women could only go to the field to care for missionaries’ children or serve alongside the missionary family. However, little by little, new opportunities arose. R. Pierce Beaver describes the work of Cynthia Farrar in India, Elizabeth Agnew in Ceylon and other single women who began to supervise women’s schools. Quietly, they helped in zenanas and harems. Doors opened through medical service. Yet their effective work was seldom publicized.

However, leaders like D.L. Moody, A.B. Simpson, and A.J. Gordon believed in encouraging women’s gifts for public ministry. Both J. Hudson Taylor, founder of China Inland Mission, and Fredrik Franson, founder of TEAM (The Evangelical Alliance Mission), saw the need to recruit and send women to evangelize crossculturally. In 1888, Taylor wrote, “We are manning our stations with ladies.” Throughout its initial history, his mission expected women, both single and married, to carry out all the missionary duties, including preaching and teaching.

In Jane Hunter’s study of correspondence and published articles from women on the field she discovered “the vast majority of women missionaries were motivated by a deep sense of commitment to God, far more than by any desire to attain personal recognition or power. That type of moving report also infected women in the churches at home with a dynamic world vision. Mobilizers such as Annie Armstrong and Helen Barret Montgomery dedicated themselves to developing missionary prayer groups, raising funds, and mobilizing Christians to support field work of all kinds.

[b]A NEW WAY OF SENDING[/b]

The Civil War in the United States became a catalyst for change in the way women were sent. After the Civil War, so many men had died that women were either widowed or unlikely to marry. “This forced women into an unusual range of responsibilities. They ran businesses, banks, farms, formed colleges and for the next 50 years inherited a larger role than men as the major muscle of the mission movement.”

Since missionary boards still refused to send women directly to the work, women simply organized their own boards. First was the Women’s Union Missionary Society. In the years to follow many others were created. They built women’s colleges, specifically to train women for missionary service. Besides rousing women to go overseas, more than 100,000 local churches developed their own active women’s missionary societies, an unmatched base for prayer and funding.

By 1910 there were forty-four women’s missionary boards in the United States, many of them within mainline denominations. They had nearly 2,000 women in the field. Their funds were raised above and beyond the regular denominational mission giving, indicating the phenomenal job of missions awareness these women’s boards were achieving on the home front. Sadly, as they were persuaded to combine with the denominational boards in the 1920’s and 30’s, women gradually lost their opportunity to direct the work.

[b]AND STILL TODAY[/b]

Overall, probably two-thirds of the total force for mission has been and currently is, female. Many mission executives agree that the more difficult and dangerous the work, the more likely women are to volunteer to do it! David Yonggi Cho concludes from his experience that women are the best choice for arduous, pioneering work. “We have found that in these situations, women will never give up. Men are good for building up the work, but women are best for persevering when men would get discouraged.”

Some fear that with the unique obstacles of reaching the Muslim world, Western women can play no part. Yet in a nomadic Muslim group in sub-Saharan Africa, a single woman is effectively training Imams (Islamic teachers) in the Gospel. They perceive her to be nonthreatening, “just a woman.” Building upon a foundation of interpersonal relationship and Bible knowledge, she does not give them answers herself. She simply shows the Imams how to find them in the Word. The Lord has confirmed her teaching, giving dreams and visions to these leaders. As they have been converted, they are now training many others. She is accepted as a loving, caring elder sister, who gives high priority to their welfare.

Jim Reapsome’s editorial in World Pulse (Oct 9, 1992) advocating more training and more support for women received an almost immediate letter of thanks from a missionary to a Muslim group in Southeast Asia He wrote:

Interestingly enough, despite the common emphasis on training and using men, here in —–, some of the best evangelists are all women! In fact 3 of our most important coworkers (who are really doing the most cutting-edge ministry) are women. Interns of Americans, we only have one single man who made the sacrifice to come here but four single women, with three more on the way. In the face of chauvinistic Islam, it is good to be reminded that true Christianity is not chauvinistic, but an equally exciting call to new, fulfilling life for women and men.

[b]OPPORTUNITIES IN SPECIAL AREAS[/b]

In recent years, women have proven themselves excellent in adapting to new roles in mission specialization. Wycliffe Bible Translators found over the years that teams of single women did well on the field a far greater number of such teams successfully finish translations than teams of single men. Elizabeth Greene, a woman pilot who served in the Air Force in WWII, was one of the founders of Mission Aviation Fellowship. Gospel Recordings, providing Christian tapes and records in many languages (using native speakers to give the Word rather than waiting for a printed translation) was founded through Joy Ridderhof’s vision and effort. Ruth Siemens’ creative idea resulted in Global Opportunities, assisting lay persons to find tentmaker positions overseas.

Christian women today need to know and celebrate their heritage. We can study women of greatness who served in Christ’s cause and claim them as our role models. From Mary Slessor, single woman pioneer in Africa, to Ann Judson of Burma and Rosalind Goforth of China, wives who fully served; from Amy Carmichael of India to Mildred Cable in the Gobi Desert; from Gladys Aylward, the tiny chambermaid determined to get to China to Mother Eliza Davis George, a black woman missionary to Liberia; from translator Rachel Saint to medical doctor Helen Roseveare; from Isobel Kuhn and Elisabeth Elliot, mobilizing missionary authors to Lottie Moon, pacesetting mission educator; from simple Filipino housemaids in the Middle East to women executives in denominational offices to unsung Bible women in China, the roll is lengthy and glorious!

That roll, however, remains incomplete, awaiting the contribution of current and future generations. God’s women now enjoy freedoms and opportunities their forebearers never envisioned. Most small businesses started in the U.S. are owned by women. Women now hold highly responsible positions in government, business, and medicine. “To whom much is given, much is required.” How will women of God today harvest such opportunities for their Father’s purposes?

Women, stirred by the task that lies ahead, can mobilize, devoting their skills, their accessibility, their knowledge, their tenderness, their intuitiveness, their own distinctive fervor to the work. The pioneer spirit, full of dedication and faithfulness, which women throughout history have shown will set the standard. The task is too vast to be completed without all God’s people!

I
iansmith

This is a very timely thread because we actually had a class in [url=http://www.perspectives.org]Perspectives[/url] on this last night.

It doesn't take many names to make even the most hardened chauvinist realize that God can and does use women mightily in the mission field.

Many in the mission field today may even argue that women are more effective as missionaries than men.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Slessor]Mary Slessor[/url] {Africa}

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Carmichael]Amy Carmichael[/url] {India}

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottie_Moon]Lottie Moon[/url] {China}

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladys_Aylward]Gladys Aylward[/url] {China}

J
John173

Great post Ian. Thanks.

This thread got me thinking about a book I read called "Eternity in their Hearts" by Don Richardson. A great read, quite amazing.

http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Their-Hearts-Startling-Throughout/dp/0830709258

One story that was told had to do with a tribal chieftan who came to the conclusion that there must be one Creator. He went to a high place to seek Him. Somehow this man understood that he was to go back to his village and prod a donkey out of the village and follow it. This donkey walked and walked until it stopped at a well in the middle of the closest missionary compound.

I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a little encouragement or needs to see just how sovereign our God truly is.

Im His Love,

Doug

I
iansmith

Don Richardson is more well known for his book, '[b]Peace Child[/b].' Which was a favorite of Keith Green's.

But we're getting off topic now =) I really want to read some Don Richardson, but my bookbag can only hold so many books, and right now it's got CS Lewis, KP Yohannan, AW Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill, John Bunyan and Fyodor Dostoevsky... Don will have to wait.

B
BenWilliams

I would like to ask a question with regards to this issue:

[b]Where in scripture does it say that a woman should not preach the gospel?[/b]

G
GodsPeace

I heard a message by Keith Daniel as to whether single women should be missionaries or not.

He said give the command to bring in all the women missionarie from the mission field and 2/3rds of the missionaries in the world would be gone.

If single women can't be missionaries, then there's a lot of 'uncalled' missionaries out here.

I went to a Christian Psychology 'Renewal' and retreat in Thailand a little over a year ago. There were about 10 married couples, and the other 10 attendees were all single women. I was the only single man, and I'm not a missionary.

I
iansmith

Something like 80% of the housechurches in Mainland China are lead by unordained women.

Women make up more than 67% of current Western missionaries world wide, married and unmarried.

In many Muslim societies a man cannot approach women... so the only way to reach women in a muslim society is with a woman missionary.

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Krispy...

I met a wonderful female missionary during one of the mission journeys that I have taken to the Tarahumara in the rugged Sierra Madre Occidental in central Mexico.

She was a lovely woman afflicted with cancer and confined to a wheelchair. She and her husband were missionaries early during their married lives. However, her husband passed away while she was still quite young. She lived on her own, until one day another missionary gave her a call. This missionary was actually calling for her husband and was unaware that he had passed away. He was going to be traveling through the region, and "felt led" to give them a call.

This woman had been praying about returning to the same region in order to finish the work that she and her husband had begun. But she was older, afflicted, and confined to a wheelchair. Even after admitting these "setbacks," this young missionary agreed to take them with her and drop her off at the former mission.

When we arrived to this very remote region in the mountains, we were surprised to see the work that was going on. The Tarahumara held great respect for this woman. She had no outside support, and simply lived in the region with this local indigenous tribe. She had no electricity, running water, or modern conveniences. Most of the Tarahumara lived in caves and small huts in the region she lived in a very small house that her husband had built in their younger years. She lived off of the produce derived from a garden she created behind the house. The Tarahumara would come from great distances to meet this woman, and the work of God continued unabridged.

One of the most remarkable things that I witnessed was during one of our afternoon services amongst the various missionaries. The head missionary wanted to preach at a nearby pen for wild pigs (one of the few sources of mean for the Tarahumara) about the state of the world. This missionary wanted to attend, but it was a pretty strong distance away from her little house -- and over rugged terrain. We were amazed to witness the local Tarahumara pick up this woman's wheelchair and carry her to the pen.

On our later mission journeys, we never returned to that same little remote village. Yet I have often thought about this woman and the work that she was doing there. There is NO way for me to contact her. In fact, I don't know if she is still alive. She told us that the doctor had given her less than a year to live (she was inoperable), and she lived without medication. When we met her, she had been back for over two years.

Do I think that a woman can be a missionary? Yes. She was one of the most "Biblical" examples of a missionary that I have ever met.

:-)

S
sermonindex

Where in scripture does it say that a woman should not preach the gospel?

No where... thats kinda the point of this thread, brother.

Now, women can not be pastors of churches. That is clear in scripture. And I'll let you find out where... you dont learn anything if I tell you where to look. ;-)

But we're all commanded to go into all the world and preach the gospel. If you're looking for a fight on that point you wont find it on this thread.

Krispy

G
ginnyrose

Fascinating post, Ian.

Another person you can easily add to your list of female missionaries is Evelyn Brand. She stayed on to minister to the people after the death of her beloved husband, Jesse. Her story can be read on: http://www.tlogical.net/biobrand.htm
http://chi.gospelcom.net/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps177.shtml
There is also the book "Granny Brand" by Dorothy Clark Wilson. Granny is one fascinating and inspiring lady...one who endured more then most people I know could, male or female.

Interesting thread, Krispy,
ginnyrose

S
sermonindex


KrispyKrittr wrote:
Now, women can not be pastors of churches. That is clear in scripture. And I'll let you find out where... you dont learn anything if I tell you where to look. ;-)

Krispy


Hi Bro Krispy.

[i]As a general rule[/i] it is clear in Scripture that women should not have authority over men. I agree with you completely, (that's why I was in some doubt when the call first came). But only as a general rule, not an absolute rule for all times and situations - including the missionery situation.

Have you looked into [i]all[/i] the relevant Scriptures, not only what Paul said? Its not necessarily as clear as you think.

There are at least two [i]scriptural[/i] exceptions to Paul's rule on women not teaching etc. (I mentioned them in another thread some time ago - [i]I'll let you find out where... you dont learn anything if I tell you where to look.[/i] ;-) ;-) ;-) )

...Looking up the word "usurp", it means [i][color=000099] "1 one who with his own hands kills another or himself. 2 one who acts on his own authority, autocratic. 3 an absolute master. 4 to govern, exercise dominion over one."[/color][/i] The first meaning doesn't apply of course but the others suggest a degree of bossiness that might not be right even for a male leader, and even less attractive in a woman!

Are you [i]100% sure[/i] you have interpreted all relevant Scripture aright? What about historical and cultural context for example? Is the principle true for all time, (as is the moral Law), or a temporary rule to promote order in the congregations and cultural setting of Paul's day? Paul said "[i][b]I[/b][/i] suffer not a woman to teach..." He didn't say that this was an absolute rule for all time, but that this was the way he, having the Lord's authority in that situation, maintained proper and decent order in the churches.*

Women in Paul's day normally didn't get religious education, and in the Synagogue they had to sit behind a curtain in a different part from the men (which sadly enabled them to gossip rather than entering in to the worship). In that culture it would be a very exceptional woman who would be fit to teach, let alone be in charge of a congregation. And most women, [i]even today[/i], (including myself, so there's no personal axe to grind here - I normally feel much more comfortable under male leadership), are not fitted to be in charge in such a way.

Yet, in these days, missionery ladies (and sometimes ladies in very small churches, at least in the UK) often find themselves having to teach congregations, including men, simply because there's no-one else able to do so.

...I'm so glad, Bro, that we can tease each other and still be friends :-)

Jeannette

*PS Do you also insist that women should cover their heads, for example? (I know of one woman who would put a duster on her head if she felt the urge to pray when doing the housework!)

S
sermonindex


John173 wrote:
Great post Ian. Thanks.

This thread got me thinking about a book I read called "Eternity in their Hearts" by Don Richardson. A great read, quite amazing.

http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Their-Hearts-Startling-Throughout/dp/0830709258

One story that was told had to do with a tribal chieftan who came to the conclusion that there must be one Creator. He went to a high place to seek Him. Somehow this man understood that he was to go back to his village and prod a donkey out of the village and follow it. This donkey walked and walked until it stopped at a well in the middle of the closest missionary compound.

I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a little encouragement or needs to see just how sovereign our God truly is.

Im His Love,

Doug


Yes, I love Don Richardson's writings. Most of the earlier missioneries seem to have had no idea how to use the already existing cultural echoes of salvation in the people they went to, but imposed their own Western culture wholesale.

Blessings

Jeannette

S
sermonindex

There are at least two scriptural exceptions to Paul's rule on women not teaching etc

...Just noticed that Ian mentioned a third, Priscilla, although I don't know that its quite clear if she took on an "official" leadership or teaching role, or only in private with her husband, but she was certainly prominent in the Church...

S
sermonindex

These women were not elders in a local church. They were not teachers in a local church. There are a lot of assumptions going on here in order to make scripture say what you want it to say. Scripture does not say that they were elders, nor that they held positions of authority in the church.

Krispy

S
sermonindex


KrispyKrittr wrote:
These women were not elders in a local church. They were not teachers in a local church. There are a lot of assumptions going on here in order to make scripture say what you want it to say. Scripture does not say that they were elders, nor that they held positions of authority in the church.

Krispy


Which women are you talking about? That is possibly true of Priscilla and probably true of one of my examples. The other however was [i]much more[/i] than a leader of a local church!

And who knows if you too are making "assumptions in order to make scripture say what you want it to say"?

I think this is a good time to stop - at least for me. I want to provoke you to considering these things in a different light, but not to annoy you. As Doug pointed out, we don't know or understand the unsearchable wisdom of God, so maybe best leave it there.

Love in Him

Jeannette

S
sermonindex

Anyone who doubts women should be in the mission field should listen to Jackie Pullinger's testimonies before they even comment... Helen Roseveare is another positively outstanding missionary... Ohhhhh... the Spirit in these women's voices...

God Bless

I
iansmith

Women in the bible... besides the obvious ones like Ruth, Esther etc. there are our new testament heroes.

Lydia - the church met in her home, well she was the first person to accept Christ in that community, so she probably raised up the church (that met in her home, not her husband's home) and did a lot of the leadership.

Priscilla - We've already mentioned Priscilla, who according to biblical scholars held a matriarchal role in her marriage (her name was listed before her husbands, which in Greek culture meant that she was the one in charge, or the more important one). She was a faithful helper to Paul in his mission organization.

Mary Magdelane - In Jewish culture only men's testimonies were admissable in court. Yet the first person to testify to the resurrection was a woman... this is one of the places where Christianity very quickly turns away from it's Jewish roots. Women were no longer untrustworthy, but could now testify to the resurrection of the Lord.

The Samaritan Woman - After Jesus confessed that he was the Messiah to come, she quickly went and called all the people of the surrounding village to come and meet Jesus, she met Jesus and within moments became one of the very first missionaries.

There are many more examples we could draw on from the Word of God and from Christian History to show that women are fit for Evangelism, Church Planting, Mission Work, Teaching, Encouraging, Working Among the Poor, and yes, even Leading!

S
sermonindex

And who knows if you too are making "assumptions in order to make scripture say what you want it to say"?

Here's the thing... when scripture (thru Paul) says that a woman is not to teach men, and in several places there are requirements for a person who wants to be an elder... some of which is impossible for a woman to fulfill (husband of one wife, for instance)... AND then you bring up several names of possible NT women "pastors" when scripture never says they were "pastors" or "elders", then we must come down on the conservative side of things here. To do otherwise is to make assumptions.

And I'm ok... not feeling argumenative or upset. I know what I believe and am confident in it to the fullest extent. For me to feel upset is to feel threatened... which I dont. :-)

Krispy

S
sermonindex

Lydia - the church met in her home, well she was the first person to accept Christ in that community, so she probably raised up the church (that met in her home, not her husband's home) and did a lot of the leadership.

Just because the church met in her home does not mean she was in the leadership of that church. We have several house churches where the hosts are not leaders... they simply have a more convenient place to meet. This is an assumption you're making... one that contradicts scripture.

While true these women you listed are heroes of the faith... scripture never mentions anything about them being part of the organized leadership of the local churches. Y'all are reading todays feminist society into scripture... and into a society that would reject modern feminism. Be careful that you are not "adding to scripture". You have to read everything in context. Y'all are basically saying "Yea, scripture says this... but over here, this was going on." But you can only say that when you make the assumptions you are making, which have no basis in scripture.

If scripture contradicts itself, like y'all are basically saying (without saying it), then we might as well throw out the Bible... none of it is trustworthy.

Krispy

I
iansmith

when scripture never says they were "pastors" or "elders" -krispy

Let us take a brief look at Romans 16:1-16

1 I commend unto you [b]Phebe our sister[/b], which is a servant* of the church which is at Cenchrea:

2That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: [b]for she hath been a succourer of many[/b], and of myself also.

3Greet [b]Priscilla[/b] and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

4Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

5Likewise greet the [b]church that is in their house[/b]. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

6[b]Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us[/b].

7Salute Andronicus and [b]Junia[/b], my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note [b]among the apostles[/b], who also were in Christ before me.

8Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.

9Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved.

10Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household.

11Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.

12[b]Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord[/b].

13Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, [b]and his mother and mine[/b].

14Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.

15Salute Philologus, and [b]Julia[/b], Nereus, [b]and his sister[/b], and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

16Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

*deaconess

What! Women deacons, women apostles, women leading churches?!

S
sermonindex

Women can be deacons. Deacons, by the Biblical definition, served... tables, etc. Today most Southern Baptist churches have deacons, but in reality they do the tasks of an elder, not a deacon. The term is misunderstood today.

"Who are of note among the apostles" ... thats not saying [i]they[/i] were apostles... he's saying that the apostles had heard of them, and their dedication to the Lord.

It's scarey how you read the Bible. Wow...

Laboring in the church is not leading the church. The man sweeping the floor is not an elder. (unless he's an elder sweeping the floor) Again, nothing in what you quoted indicates that these women were leading the local churches. Not in an organizational manner.

Play fast and loose like this with scripture and you're headed for trouble, my friend.

Krispy

S
sermonindex


LittleGift wrote:
...The other however was [i]much more[/i] than a leader of a local church!

That was Deborah, who led a [i]nation[/i]! Of course she needed men to do the actual fighting against their enemies. Except for Jael the wife of Heber, who was very good at braining people with tent pegs! (That a woman killed the enemy commander was actually Baruch's fault because he wouldn't trust the Lord for himself.)

That was of course the Old Testament Church, but Deborah is still an exception to "prove" the (right and proper) rule that men should be in leadership. She was a woman of God in a high position of leadership under God.

Jeannette

I
iansmith

Anyone familiar with Greek want to get in on this action? According to my limited understanding of greek I know that there is a depth to this list that cannot be fully expressed with the limitation of the english words.

But I do know that Krispy is limiting himself by the english words and meanings.

Krispy, you are taking one set of verses that were originally given to one specific church for one specific reason and applying them broadly to all of Christiandom -which is the case for some situations and not for others, we have to be discerning.

I hate to use this example, but one sister has already brought up 'head coverings.' The reason that covering the head isn't enforced in the modern church is that the original decree was given to a culture that no longer exists.

In the greek/roman/jewish culture of the day, women covered their heads in traditional religious cermonies. Yet when the Gospel went out to the barbarians, those barbarians did not have a similar tradition. The Gospel moved forward and left the tradition behind. Today we can see that that was just a Jewish/Greek tradition and not necessarily part of the Gospel.

The same can be said of women in leadership roles. Right now women outnumber men in Chinese house churches nearly ten to one. It would be a big mistake to put the leadership of that whole church movement on the shoulders of that one percent. So leadership is largely female (which you wouldn't have guessed by reading Brother Yun's book).

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, [b]there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus[/b].

I hate verse-warfare, but I think there are more verses in the bible to support women's broader roles in the church than there are to oppose it. I'm not a femenist, I'm a Christian, and looking at women as equals in Christ, I give them the respect of a sister and a mother. There's no way that I'm going to tell a sister or a mother that they can't be a leader.

H
hmmhmm


iansmith wrote:
[There's no way that I'm going to tell a sister or a mother that they can't be a leader.


there is only one problem whit that, if you are wrong in that you rebel against God.... I'm not saying you are wrong...but IF you were, we need to examine all scriptures before we say we will or wont do something....

God bless everybody....

Christian

L
lyndon

Rom 16:1-2 ¶ I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also

Didn't really want to get involved in this discussion because I agree with alot of what Krispy is saying. However, I'd like to point out that the correct translation for succourer would be leader. If anybody would like to check the greek on that, I think you'll find that to be true. Now if she has been a leader of many and of Paul also...............

Maybe a better way of looking at this would be to say that the perfect will of God would be to raise up men to such positions, however with the dearth of godly men these days...............

Lyndon

I
iansmith

Wives are told to be submissive to husbands, and daughters to parents... but what about a woman who isn't married and doesn't have parents? Freedom!

Does it say that sisters should submit to brothers, or that mothers should submit to sons? I don't think that is anywhere in the bible.

You see, we take some verses that are specifically about gender roles within the covenant of marriage and apply them to gender roles within society. That is improper use of the word of God.

We also take Paul's words wholesale when sometimes they're for a specific church in a specific situation and not for the entire body. Paul, believe it or not, was also occasionally wrong and had to be corrected by others, like Barnabus.

S
sermonindex


KrispyKrittr wrote:
And who knows if you too are making "assumptions in order to make scripture say what you want it to say"?

Here's the thing... when scripture (thru Paul) says that a woman is not to teach men, and in several places there are requirements for a person who wants to be an elder... some of which is impossible for a woman to fulfill (husband of one wife, for instance)...


So your interpretation of scripture assumes that Paul's practical rules for the running of churches were fixed, unbreakable and permanent?
AND then you bring up several names of possible NT women "pastors" when scripture never says they were "pastors" or "elders", then we must come down on the conservative side of things here. To do otherwise is to make assumptions.

That wasn't me
And I'm ok... not feeling argumenative or upset. I know what I believe and am confident in it to the fullest extent. For me to feel upset is to feel threatened... which I dont. :-)
Why not? :-D

I really must stop teasing you Bro. I'm in no way a feminist you know, let alone wanting to usurp authority. I even agree with you in principle.

I just [i]can't[/i] accept that there are [i]never, ever[/i] any God-given exceptions to your interpretation of the rules. The Word of God just can't be put into such neat, rigid pigeonholes, as Doug has expressed so well!

Good night, God bless...

Jeannette

S
sermonindex


iansmith wrote:
Wives are told to be submissive to husbands, and daughters to parents... but what about a woman who isn't married and doesn't have parents? Freedom!

Does it say that sisters should submit to brothers, or that mothers should submit to sons? I don't think that is anywhere in the bible.


1Peter 5:5
"5 Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for
l“God resists the proud,
But gives grace to the humble.”

That verse is VERY challenging!

Apparently the word "submit" is "A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”.

Jeannette

I was just about to press the "Submit" button when I realised what it said

I think the Lord is really "rubbing it in"
:-(

Said goodnight a while ago, its nearly 11pm and have had a busy week. The proble m is that while I'm composing an answer to one post several more appear!

Bless you all

Love in Him

Jeannette

I
iansmith

I'm quite aware of those verses, but most men seem to ignore them in favor of the chauvinist-biased ones. If we all lived in submission to one another there would be no need for church leadership at all, because would all be taking care of one anothers needs -but that's a picture of perfection, that's heaven, what we have to look forward to!

J
John173

I'm afraid I have to take Krispy's side in this debate. While we may not fuly understand why God created us male and female, He did. He could just as easily created us asexual. There is something in the role of male to female that is specific to authority. The husband is the head of the wife. In the same way men are held responsible for authority positions in the church. To place women in authority positions is to go against the economy of God as it relates to hierarchy.

When we look at what has happened to society as it has rejected the 'old fashioned' roles of husband and wife it should be obvious that it has born bad fruit. When church leadership begins to ignore the male/authority model they place themselves on a precarious and rather slippery slope.


Jeannette,
There is not a single sister on SI that I hold in higher regard than you. You consistently show a great deal of wisdom, understanding and character here at SI. I do not doubt that you have been called, but I contend that a calling to teach is not the same as leading an entire body. This is not said to question you or in any way reprove you. I would instead place this caveat on my statements. In the absence of a mature believer who is scripturally qualified to lead women must step in, but this is out of necessity, not the rule.

In His Love,

Doug

J
joyinjesus8

Nice last comment Ian.....where there will be neither male or female, Jew nor Greek......

A query:
I see there are many Pastors wives being included in the title. Eg. ‘Pastor John and Pastor Suzie Smith’. He had the calling, not her - so why has this become so popular? There is a lady in a large Sydney assembly who carries the title ‘Worship Pastor’. When did these new ‘callings’ come about? I don’t see them in the Word. (Or in the latter case could it be to keep her in that assembly? – she is a great singer)

Lyndon said:
‘Maybe a better way of looking at this would be to say that the perfect will of God would be to raise up men to such positions, however with the dearth of godly men these days...............’

Exactly!

It seems that until quite recently the Church went through a stage where there was a great shortage of men in - thankfully that is beginning to turn around now. We all have a responsibility to share the Gospel with others, and the Lord will use whomever He wishes to get His Word across. We have some wonderful examples of missionaries who are women, and whom the Lord used greatly.

I
iansmith

I go to a Korean church, in Korean the pastor is called 'Mohksanim,' his wife is called 'Samanim.' These actually come from the Chinese written characters for 'honorable father' and 'honorable mother.'

There's another title that's often given which is 'Jundohsanim' which we often say translates to assistant pastor, but it would more probably mean 'honorable one with a calling.' This is a calling to preach, to evangelize.

A woman in Korea cannot be a 'MSN' (because that means 'father.') She can however be a 'JDSN' while at the same time being a 'SMN.'

I've stated before, that in my church in particular, the founding pastor (MSN) was more of a shepherd, while his wife (JDSN) was the actual visionary and leader of the church. Our church has been blessed through her love for Jesus and desire to serve, even in a leadership role.

God has called some women to preach, and teach, and even be leaders. The word 'pastor' isn't in the bible... last I checked at least, so why do we say that the bible says that women can't be pastors.

S
sermonindex


John173 wrote:
I'm afraid I have to take Krispy's side in this debate. While we may not fuly understand why God created us male and female, He did. He could just as easily created us asexual. There is something in the role of male to female that is specific to authority. The husband is the head of the wife. In the same way men are held responsible for authority positions in the church. To place women in authority positions is to go against the economy of God as it relates to hierarchy.

When we look at what has happened to society as it has rejected the 'old fashioned' roles of husband and wife it should be obvious that it has born bad fruit. When church leadership begins to ignore the male/authority model they place themselves on a precarious and rather slippery slope.


Jeannette,
There is not a single sister on SI that I hold in higher regard than you. You consistently show a great deal of wisdom, understanding and character here at SI. I do not doubt that you have been called, but I contend that a calling to teach is not the same as leading an entire body. This is not said to question you or in any way reprove you. I would instead place this caveat on my statements. In the absence of a mature believer who is scripturally qualified to lead women must step in, but this is out of necessity, not the rule.

In His Love,

Doug


Actually Doug I agree with almost everything you say here - except perhaps your kind "vote of confidence"! 8-)

This isn't really a personal issue with me any more (if it ever was). Especially because I haven't preached or been in any sort of leadership position for some years. Not because of the matter we are discussing but because of that fatal flaw (shared elsewhere) of "needing to be needed", and the fact that "the ministry" wasn't actually my ministry at all, just a stage on the way. Like walking through a certain town when you are on a journey to somewhere else.

The main reason - I think - for debating here is that it does irritate me (whatever the topic) when folks assume a rigid stance on some point of Scripture that doesn't bear that amount of weight, and refuse to accept the possibility of even one exception to the rule. To me that is not "rightly dividing the Word of truth" (sorry Bro Krispy, but there it is). As someone said recently, the Word is multi-faceted - so rich that it can't be contained within our narrow definitions or "proof texts".

A rigid stance is more fitting to a lobster (which can't help it, and has to keep changing its shell in order to grow!) than to a child of the living God!

As Lewis Carol wrote ("Alice in Wonderland"):
" 'Will you walk a little faster?', said the whiting to the snail
'There's a lobster close behind us and he's treading on my tail'..."

Or words to that effect

This is the third time I've tried to get away from you folks' wonderful company - its nearly 11.30 now and I'm wide awake again!

GOOD NIGHT (I think:-))

Jeannette

S
sermonindex

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;


iansmith wrote:
...The word 'pastor' isn't in the bible... last I checked at least, so why do we say that the bible says that women can't be pastors.

Better check again. :-o

J
John173

Can a single woman be a missionary? :-(

J
joyinjesus8

Dear Brother Ian,

The Word Pastor appears a number of times in Jeremiah and here

Ephesians 4:11
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
(KJV)

You are right in that it does mean shepherd.

My query was all the 'new trends' that seem to be creeping into the Church. One of which is wives calling themselves 'Pastor' (or whatever their husband's title may be), when they in many cases don't even teach Sunday School or lead Ladies groups etc. It looks like a pride thing, but I was just wondering when all this became so popular.

Being tucked away way out here (which is a blessing) I often 'pick up' the latest fads well after the event!! :-)

H
HomeFree89


joyinjesus8 wrote:

Being tucked away way out here (which is a blessing) I often 'pick up' the latest fads well after the event!! :-)


That is a blessing. 8-)

T
taco

Paul seems to forbid women teaching the assemble church. But that doesn't stop them from ministering.

P
PTywama3

Universal statements can be dangerous. Paul was writing to a specific culture, to which little doubt can be shed. The context in which he and the others of his time had influence most specifically in that time.

So now comes another question... can single men lead the church? Of course a bishop must be the husband of one wife (meaning, it would seem culturally, not a polygamist and probably educated.) What of widowers? Should he then be displaced at the time of of his wife's death?

According also to 1 Timothy 3:12, deacons must have wives of good report, meaning they must also scripturally be men...

KrispyKrittr wrote:
Women can be deacons. Deacons, by the Biblical definition, served... tables, etc. Today most Southern Baptist churches have deacons, but in reality they do the tasks of an elder, not a deacon. The term is misunderstood today.


I think I should post a thread on this topic all by itself, but universal applications are a dangerous thing when it comes to doctrine, simply because doctrine has an inherent way of being subjective. Such doctrine, even when apparently Biblically stated, has a way of being specifically relevant. So maybe there is another inherently greater concept we should be able to pull from all of this?

It becomes a dangerous game when we as Christians play the "this is the only way" card too often. I seem to remember another group of persons who fell into that category, and our very Christ had a way of insulting them frequently. Certainly the card must be played, but it requires more wisdom than most.

A Bible without so many rigid rules is a difficult one, insofar that when intentions are manifest and are themselves guidelines, shortchanging rules becomes inherently more difficult.

Just a random question: As head of the Church, shouldn't Christ be married?


*Edit* I'm sorry, 1 Timothy 3:11 describes the wife a deacon should have, 3:12 gives a similar condition to a deacon that a bishop must have. *Edit*

S
sermonindex

by HomeFree89 on 2007/3/9 19:16:01 Quote: joyinjesus8 wrote: Being tucked away way out here (which is a blessing) I often 'pick up' the latest fads well after the event!! That is a blessing.


ditto...i actually that this was one that was amusing and sadly true...believe me that's a blessing

S
sermonindex

"And he (Apollos) began to speak boldly in the synagogue, whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (ACTS 18:26)

Two GREEK women teaching a JEWISH man about salvation... will the miracles never cease, Amen!!!

L
lyndon

Two GREEK women teaching a JEWISH man about salvation

Umm not quite, have a look at this verse.
Acts 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.

Lyndon

I
iansmith


joyinjesus8 wrote:
Dear Brother Ian,
...

My query was all the 'new trends' that seem to be creeping into the Church. One of which is wives calling themselves 'Pastor' (or whatever their husband's title may be), when they in many cases don't even teach Sunday School or lead Ladies groups etc. It looks like a pride thing, but I was just wondering when all this became so popular.

Being tucked away way out here (which is a blessing) I often 'pick up' the latest fads well after the event!! :-)

Joy,

I know of the fad, there is a 'mega-church' in Seattle called 'Christian Faith Center' I believe and It has a 'Pastoral Couple.' They take turns preaching. Now I really don't want to comment on anyone's call by God, because that would be presuming knowledge on par with God's, which is blasphemy -however they do get a lot of negative press for their prosperity gospel and word of faith doctrine.

I also mentioned my own church where there was a 'Pastoral Couple,' in the context of a Korean church. Infact, when a Korean is ordained by the church his wife is literally ordained with him, which is why she is called 'honorable mother(wife).'

This certainly doesn't mean that all Korean pastor's wives preach, or are even godly, but in the case of my particular church our founding Pastor's wife actually had a mantle of evangelism, preaching, spiritual leadership and discipleship -and her husband took a comparable back seat role.

Now that pastor actually prayed for a wife that loved Jesus more than she could love any earthly man... and that's what he got, amazing how God answers prayer. Before she met Christ she was in the most prestegious university in Korea well on her way to worldly success, but after becoming a Christian she had a vision for raising up leaders for the church in the twenty-first century... that was way back in 1980. Since then the church that her and her husband founded has been recognized by our denomination as one of the most prolific church-planting churches in the whole denomination... she was given a vision and an annointing to plant churches and raise leaders, even as a woman, and God blessed her work.

There are several rising theologians and christian professors as well as hundreds of full time and lay ministers who first heard the Gospel through her ministry on the Berkeley campus in the early 1980's. Within twenty years her original church in Berkeley has planted over twenty churches world wide and raised hundreds of pastors -one is now even teaching at Weaton, another just completed his second PhD in theology at Oxford.

[b]In answer to your question Joy, you did not ask the right question. You assume that a pastor's wife doesn't have a calling of her own[/b]. In many cases as the one I testified to above, this spiritual woman recieved a call to plant churches before meeting her future husband and was lead by God into that relationship.

There are definitely 'Pastoral Couples' whose partners do not both share the same annointing or call... but there are also thousands of preachers, pastors, missionaries and evangelists around the world who keep on doing 'works' without a real call from God -irregardless of gender. There are thousands of MEN in pulpits that have no business being there. [b]When we crusade against issues like 'Pastoral Couples' we completely ignore the fact that the church in America is in a state of decay not because of the women in the pulpits, but because of the lack of men AND women with unction (as Leonard Ravenhill would put it)[/b].

I
iansmith


Corey_H wrote:
"And he (Apollos) began to speak boldly in the synagogue, whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (ACTS 18:26)

Two GREEK women teaching a JEWISH man about salvation... will the miracles never cease, Amen!!!

Corey,

I like your attitude, but I want to point out something. Priscilla and Aquila are a wife and husband, mentioned several times in reference to Paul's ministry, they were some of his closest and dearest fellow workers.

Priscilla's name is usually mentioned before Aquila's, and in Greek and Roman culture this implied that she was actually the head of the the household, or held more power. You are right that these two Greco-Jews led another Jew to the savior, but they are not both women.

Because of their names (being Greek names) they were most likely Jews who were raised outside of Israel, or God-fearing Greeks who went through with circumcision (in Aquila's case) and 'Jewish baptism' rites in order to become members of the Jewish religion. They could also have been Jews by only one parent, which would have made them outcasts in parts of Judea, but more susceptible to the Gospel.

Some people might say that their names could have simply been because they were born and raised in other parts of the Roman world... however Paul was brought up in Tarsus and retained a Jewish name 'Saul.' As is the case with many other full blooded Jews outside of Judea. More likely it is one of the above mentioned situations.

But your point is certainly valid that Priscilla was closely involved in the discipleship of this Jewish man, even as a woman. Especially when you consider that the verse says, '[b]they[/b]' implying 'both.'

S
sermonindex

I like your attitude, but I want to point out something. Priscilla and Aquila are a wife and husband, mentioned several times in reference to Paul's ministry, they were some of his closest and dearest fellow workers.

Oops. I just rushed through Acts over the past few days and remembered seeing these two names, and since Aquila ends with "la", I assumed...

Thanks for straighting that out. How embarrassing!

J
joyinjesus8

Dearest Brother, I don't want to go on and on about this, as it gets nowhere. I did ask the right question in how long wives have tacked themselves onto their husbands calling. It is a fad that is becoming common sadly.

I certainly do not assume that many of these women do not have a calling - that would be so very wrong of me. I am actually talking of at least 4 women that I know of who delight in calling by certain titles that they do not have the right to. I will leave this alone for now.

I believe that women have made and will continue to make wonderful missionaries as I believe I have made it known.

As for the rest of my comments - I love where the Lord has planted us. The great Australian outback, and yes the things going on in the big cities are far from us, but that does not mean that we are unaware of happenings. It means that our lifestyle is wonderful - no locks on doors or fear for children going to play with a pal. We are truely blessed. Thank you Jesus!

Blessings

S
sermonindex

agreed. yes and amen.

R
roadsign

Does it say that sisters should submit to brothers, or that mothers should submit to sons? I don't think that is anywhere in the bible.

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” Eph. 5:21 We need to get past our worldly mindsets regarding hierarchy before we can understand what this means.

...The word 'pastor' isn't in the bible...

It is, as pointed out. But still a question needs to be asked: Where in the Bible was ANYONE a pastor of a particular local church?

will the miracles never cease, Amen!!!

When we LOOK at what God has done through women through Spirit-empowered leadership, we are silenced. Clearly God has himself leads women to lead in ways that are beyond human conprehension. The real argument then is with God, not each other.

Diane

S
sermonindex

(SORRY FOR THE BOLD and other odd sections.......I AM TRYING TO LEARN TO QUOTE DIFFERENT PARTS WHILE ADDING COMMENTS...but I am failing...)


iansmith...and to everyone else...

I was not going to post to this thread, but ian mentioned Koreans, so my interest peaked. I read what you wrote about your church ian, and my KOREAN fiancee said, "strange!"

Seeing that I am in Korea and that my fiancee is Korean, we have a good idea as to the 'pecking order' of the church here.

You are right about some things, but your overall point is not correct...



iansmith wrote:
I go to a Korean church, in Korean the pastor is called 'Mohksanim,' his wife is called 'Samanim.' These actually come from the Chinese written characters for 'honorable father' and 'honorable mother.'

........................................

my reply:

...yes, but not exactly...

Mohksanim...
Mohk = raise (person, animal, or thing)
Sa = teacher of position
Nim = respect

....means - in reference to church...HEAD OF CHURCH

Samonim...
Sa = teacher of position
Mo = mother / in-law
Nim = respect

....MEANS - in reference to church...a respectful name for the women who is married to the Mohksanim or in English...Pastor.
......................................

ian's quote:


There's another title that's often given which is 'Jundohsanim' which we often say translates to assistant pastor, but it would more probably mean 'honorable one with a calling.' This is a calling to preach, to evangelize.
.....................................

my reply:

This is somewhat true, except that Koreans do not use the world evangelize, even in their tranlated language.

.............................................

ian's quote:

A woman in Korea cannot be a 'MSN' (because that means 'father.') She can however be a 'JDSN' while at the same time being a 'SMN.'

...............................

my reply:

MSN - does not mean father and there are WOMEN MSN's in Korea... I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this point, except to say that it does not only apply to men.

JDSN - you are half right. Men and women can be a JDSN, however, as I mentioned, women are able to be MSN's, as well, so your point is losing ground.


............................................

ian's quote:

I've stated before, that in my church in particular, the founding pastor (MSN) was more of a shepherd, while his wife (JDSN) was the actual visionary and leader of the church. Our church has been blessed through her love for Jesus and desire to serve, even in a leadership role.

.............................................

my reply:

My fiancee read this and said,"That's a strange church." (ian, she does not mean that there is something wrong with your church, just that it is 'strange' that a woman would be considered the 'visionary and leader of the church.'

.................................................

ian's quote:

God has called some women to preach, and teach, and even be leaders. The word 'pastor' isn't in the bible... last I checked at least, so why do we say that the bible says that women can't be pastors.

............................
my reply:

Well, actually it has already been proven that 'pastor' is written in the Bible.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify some things that you were trying to strengthen your point with.

As for me, I am in the same boat as Krispy, or at least the same Bible.

Men have their positions. Women have their positions. There are and will be times when these positions will be tested, tried, and trued... over the long-term... Men have their positions and women have theirs.

I love women for their abilities and men for theirs. We are all part of the body of Christ, but we are made to do different functions.

ALSO... to answer the original question about a single woman as a missionary... Yes.

God Bless those that fulfill their purpose,
BrianMira

P.S. Again, I am sorry it looks so sloppy... I guess I am not experienced 'yet' in dissecting posts... give me time.

:-(

J
John173

When God created male and female He created them with certain biological differences. These go beyond the obvious reproductive components. Our [i]brains[/i] are actually [i]structured[/i] differently. At some point during its development in the womb, a male child will develop testosterone. This hormone 'washes' his brain. It destroys a large portion of the pathways between the left and right sides of the brain.

The reason I bring this up is that male and female were [i]designed by God[/i] to be unique; in order that we may fulfill different roles. All this talk about women in leadership goes against the very nature of how God created and designed us. Leadership by its very nature implies authority, and [i]authority[/i] is the core issue here.

This attempt to usurp God's creative design by placing women in places of authority is nothing short of kicking against our Creator. I know how harsh and unbending this sounds. It is unbending because no matter how much I may dislike the role I was designed to fulfill, I am not of my own making.

One of the problems we run into in this issue is that of perceived value. We have this notion that a woman is somehow of less value because she is told to remain in subjection to the authority of men. [i]This is sheer and utter nonsense.[/i] If anything, women should be given the greater honor. The value that a godly woman adds to the body of Christ is [i]immeasurable.[/i]

Again, the bottom line issue here is about authority. There is a hirarchy created by God to be followed. Submitting to authority is clearly taught in the Word of God. Fighting this hierarchy is the foolishness of man made manifest.

In closing, this is one of those posts I would rather not have written. The issue is devisive and I am by nature non-confrontational. Yet, I could not avoid sharing these things. I pray that I have succeeded in speaking the truth in love, for this is my desire.

In Christ,

Doug

P
PTywama3

Doug,

Again, the bottom line issue here is about authority. There is a hierarchy created by God to be followed. Submitting to authority is clearly taught in the Word of God. Fighting this hierarchy is the foolishness of man made manifest.

The issue of Deborah has been brought up before, but doesn't that put a kink in things? What also about Ruth? She did things that were just culturally not appropriate - taking leading roles in different places, etc. Yet this aggressive, challenging behavior isn't seen as bad.

Once again, Doug, I don't necessarily disagree with your premise as a whole. But we are also to respect our mothers. Whether we like it or not, they have a level of authority over us (God-given), be we male or female.

We also educate women, as we see them to be of similar (not the same but of no less) value. This just simply doesn't slide well into the practices of the time (by and large)... but this isn't bad, right? Yet this very concept requests of us the right of women to be educated, which eventually means having a position of some authority over others who don't achieve similar levels of education. That may seem an awkward phrase, but a woman with a masters is often better suited than a man with a diploma to run things in her respective field because she legitimately possesses knowledge the other does not - and in no small way. But we don't see that education as bad/an evil-making predicate, do we?

These are the kinds of inclusive questions that need to be answered before our theology becomes concrete, because they spell hypocrisy for our ideas. If God is capable of judging Israel with a woman, shouldn't we examine why? Was it merely because there were no men in that day who could fill the role, or was it a position legitimately given to that woman? How does our culture differ from what was commonplace and what does that do to our effective use of theology? If a woman may be educated, can she not employ herself properly? How do we consider the honor we are commanded to give our mothers?

The Bible may indeed be clear, but with our western, modern mindsets, its clarity is often of a different sort than it ought to be.

S
sermonindex

ian... my fiancee is wondering the name or your church and/or the name of the 'pastor' or the 'pastor's wife??

Is it a Hallelujuh Church?

Just curious because there is an infamous type of church in Korea, which my fiancee said that are structured that way. They tend to be a 'healing church'.

S
sermonindex

PTywama3 wrote:

The issue of Deborah has been brought up before, but doesn't that put a kink in things? What also about Ruth? She did things that were just culturally not appropriate - taking leading roles in different places, etc. Yet this aggressive, challenging behavior isn't seen as bad.
Thanks for this. Especially for mentioning Ruth. I don't see her as an exception re women in authority, but in another way. Surely her behaviour was neither challenging nor agressive, but modest and decent, and according to the law and customs of Israel?

Although she certainly (on her mother-in-law's advice) took the initiative in asking Boaz to marry her, (the meaning of "cover me" - pleading his protection in marriage), but in accordance with the Law.

I think that the main significance of Ruth is because the Law of Moses said that a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord - not to the "tenth generation", which in Hebrew idiom means [i]never[/i]!

Yet Ruth not only came into Israel but was an ancestor of Christ!

Similarly, Ruth's mother-in-law, (Rahab) was not only a Caananite, but a shrine prostitute! God commanded the Caananites to be utterly destroyed, so how come??? She was the [i]only[/i] exception, but she was an exception!

The point is that GOD makes exceptions to His own rules sometimes.

This is what I'm basically arguing for, that [i][b]the Bible itself[/b][/i] shows that there can be exceptions to even "rules" given by God. Including, but not only, the subordinate (though not inferior) place of women.

HE is the One who makes the exceptions, not us! That way there can be no problem of "usurping authority".

In Him

Jeannette

J
John173

I do agree that there is no hard and fast rule here. The problem is that as fallen creatures we tend to use the existance of God's right to make exceptions in order to legitimize and justify the exceptions of our own making.

I am of the firm conviction that any woman who seeks the Lord will have an abundance of wisdom and understanding in His ways. Just because she is a woman does not mean she should keep silent about the understanding she has gained. There are so many ways this takes place in daily life I wouldn't even attempt to cover them.

When it comes to authority, it is obvious that a mother has authority over her children. But this is only properly excersised as she submits to any God given authority over her. The same can be said of men. If a man is excersizing authority over a congregation or even his wife, but is not submitted to the authority over his own life, namely God Himself, then that mantle is somewhat diminished.

As far as excercising authority goes, too many men think this means that they are the only ones responsible for the input necessary for decision making etc. This type of thinking is foolhardy. We as men are in desperate need of the perspectives of our wives, daughters etc. We need to give prayerful attention to what these women have to say. As men we often lose sight of such things as grace, mercy, gentleness etc. The women in our lives are often used to temper our enthusiastic zeal and bring us back to a balanced outlook.

Well, I think I've said enough here. I think I could go on for pages on end sermonizing about this. Each of us must draw our own conclusions. Hopefully each of us, including me, will keep an open mind towards the Holy Spirit and allow Him to give us a deeper understanding in all areas of authority.

Blessings to all,

Doug

G
ginnyrose

Corey wrote:

Thanks for straighting that out. How embarrassing!

Cheer up, brother, this won't be the last mistake you will make! :-P It just means you are human like everyone else..but when you become aware of it and admit it, now that takes character. :-)

Blessings,
ginnyrose

S
sermonindex

Cheer up, brother, this won't be the last mistake you will make! It just means you are human like everyone else..but when you become aware of it and admit it, now that takes character.

Well, as a heathen I made enough mistakes via sin to last a billion lifetimes. Whatever mistakes I make while searching the LORD's mysteries (to further understand His abundant mercies and His miraculous salvation of my once-doomed soul) I count as blessings!!! Selah.

And I count all the corrections and lessons learned from fellow believers as blessings, too. God Bless Us All. Amen.

S
sermonindex

That was of course the Old Testament Church, but Deborah is still an exception to "prove" the (right and proper) rule that men should be in leadership. She was a woman of God in a high position of leadership under God.

But one thing you miss... she was in no way involved in leading the sacrifices and the worship [b]in the temple[/b]. Samson was just as much a judge as Deborah was, yet I never hear him get the same credit as people give to Deborah who are trying to proove that women can lead in the church.

Deborah was a [b]civil[/b] leader, not a religious leader.

I see no prohibition against women in civil leadership in scripture.

Krispy

S
sermonindex

KrispyKrittr wrote:
That was of course the Old Testament Church, but Deborah is still an exception to "prove" the (right and proper) rule that men should be in leadership. She was a woman of God in a high position of leadership under God.

But one thing you miss... she was in no way involved in leading the sacrifices and the worship [b]in the temple[/b].

Deborah was a [b]civil[/b] leader, not a religious leader…

Krispy, you have missed something too. By your reasoning, the [i]only[/i] Judge who was a spiritual leader was Samuel! Samuel was a Levite and would have been able to take part in offering sacrifices etc, (the temple wasn’t built yet), but [i]all[/i] the other Judges were excluded.

Although she could not have any role in the sacrificial system, Deborah is the [i]only[/i] Judge besides Samuel who is recorded as having any clear spiritual leadership role. The rest of the Judges were apparently civil and/or military leaders only, although most were no doubt Godly men; but Deborah was a prophetess who judged by the Word of the Lord, not her own wisdom.

The other important point that cancels your argument is that blood sacrifice, and Temple worship, is now obsolete because Christ has fulfilled it, and we all are His Temple.

Therefore (unless you hold the Roman Catholic position on this) Church leaders have [i]no[/i] sacrificial role. So, again by your reasoning, they are all – whether male or female - civil leaders!

Samson was just as much a judge as Deborah was, yet I never hear him get the same credit as people give to Deborah who are trying to prove that women can lead in the church.
Its a pity you didn't pick Samuel as an example - because he's the only one who would have made sense of your case (see above).

For most of his life Samson seems to have been a wilful, vindictive, selfish womaniser. He didn't have any of the usual leadership qualities, especially the spiritual ones. He wasn’t even a military leader as such, but acted more like a star performer - just doing his own thing - than a member of a team. He went around bumping off Philistines single handed whenever he felt like it, and that was about it.

Yet God used him, and he "came good in the end", and is among the heroes of faith listed in Hebrews 11.

How wonderful that the Lord doesn't give up on us!

Reminds me of the hymn...

[i][color=003399]He maketh the rebel a priest and a king
He hath bought us and taught us this new song to sing:

Unto Him who hath loved us and washed us from sin
Unto Him be the glory, for ever, Amen."...[/color][/i]

AMEN!!!

Love in Him

Jeannette

I
iansmith

Anyone read this book?

[b]WHY NOT WOMEN? A Fresh Look at Scripture on Women in Missions, Ministry, and Leadership [/b]
By Loren Cunningham and David J Hamilton
Millions of women all over the world are looking over the church's shoulder, longing to see the freedom Jesus purchased for them at Calvary. Millions more have found freedom in Jesus but are still bound by human ideas - ideas that pressure a woman to let culture, not God, determine her place in the Kingdom.

While hurting men and women outside the church cry out, "Is there any hope? Does anyone care?" their sisters in the church are asking, "How can I share the hope I have? How can I, a woman, serve the Lord?" Many women, having heard God call them into public roles in the Kingdom, are serving in positions of leadership. They are asking, "Will the church support us?"

We must respond. The issue of women in missions, ministry, and leadership is dividing homes, churches, communities, even societies. We must respond responsibly, for we never want to find ourselves working against God's purposes, quenching His Spirit at work in the lives of those He has called. We must respond carefully, since God's truth often stands in direct opposition to what the majority of people believe.
Why Not Women? brings light, not just more heat, to the church's crucial debate with:

* A detailed study of women in Scripture
* Historical and current global perspectives
* An examination of the fruit of women in public ministry
* A hard-hitting revelation of what's at stake for women, men, the Body of Christ, God's Kingdom, and the unreached.

Why Not Women? also includes an examination of the fruit of women in public ministry, an exploration of the value and roles of women in Greek and Roman history and literature, Jewish rabbinic literature, the early church, current cultures and the church today. Enjoy historical as well as current global perspectives, and a detailed study of women in Old Testament writings, Jesus' ministry, and Paul's letters.

This book is available in Spanish, see below.

Pages: 277 (paperback)

http://www.ywampublishing.com/pc-354-45-why-not-women.aspx

S
sermonindex

No, Jeanette... my point wasnt lost. Just as there are no examples of women ministering in the temple (or ministering as the Levites did before the temple... please excuse my not being clearer on that) there are no examples in the NT of women as church leaders. (i.e. elders)

There is something everyone seems to miss here. Who is the leader in the home? If it is a scriptural family, then the husband is. Dont we all agree that the husband is required of God to be the spiritual leader? Since one of the qualifications of eldership in the local church is that he rules his house well [i](1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?))[/i] ... how can a woman be qualified? She isnt supposed to be ruling her house, her husband is. To say that a woman is in submission (and of course, I'm speaking of healthy spiritual submission) to her husband in the home, but then she is in spiritual leadership over men in the church (i.e. men in spiritual submission to her), is nothing more than confusion. And God is not the author of confusion.

And it's not about men being better or more spiritual than women. It's about God's order. God placed the man as the head of the woman. Why? The fall. And Paul makes that extremely clear. And thats not his opinion... those are words inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Women can serve God in ministry in many many ways. But two things they can not do... according to scripture... is teach men, and be in church leadership (i.e. pastors, elders). If you go back and read my original post you will see that I was extremely positive about women missionaries... but I think that has gotten lost because everyone has [b]judged[/b] me to be saying something I havent said. I've been very clear about what I know scripture to prohibit when it comes to women in the church. And people hate it when I get all black and white on an issue... but scripture couldnt be more clear. When scripture says something clearly, and people begin to make it hazy... it isnt scripture that is wrong.

Krispy

S
sermonindex

Ian... I havent read the book. And frankly I dont care what Loren Cunningham and David J Hamilton have to say on the matter. Thats the problem in the church today; too many people reading too many books telling them what scripture says instead of reading scripture to see what scripture has to say.

Krispy

O
ontheway

my first post on this forum.

I have just read the whole thread and while I don't want to comment on which side of the fence I stand as regards women leaders/ pastors the initial question was can single women be missionaries. I think we have universally agreed that the answer to this is Yes.

I did want to make a comment regarding Don Richardson's book Eternity in their hearts. i read it a long time ago and thought it was good. However, the philosophy in the book is now one of the foundations of the 'redeeming cultures' teaching that is sweeping through modern missons - actively promoted by YWAM etc. This false teaching is very dangerous and teaches people that they can worship God within the confines of their previous culture/ religion (where as Paul teaches to flee from it) I am aware that this is 'off' subject but it did come up a few times. (I've recently read a paper stating that people that come for Buddhist back grounds can be referred to as new-buddhists not Christians as this will offend people in their home cultures)

Yes single women can be missionaries as long as they are not propagating modern mission trends that are an insult to our heavenly Father!

Much grace,
ontheway

S
sermonindex

[b]ontheway[/b]... excellent addition to the thread. I couldnt agree more. One of the things that is hamstringing the church in America is the refusal to leave behind the old life (or culture, as you point out), and embrace a new life where all things are made new.

Instead, we make our churches "seeker-sensitive", and act just like the world so that we can "bring them in"... even tho we were not commanded to attract the world to us... we were commanded to GO into all the world.

Welcome to the forum.

Krispy

E
enid

Haven't commented on this post for a while. Not that I need to.

I thought by now it would have burnt itself out, but nope, everyone wants to add their own flavour to it.

I also can't help but notice, that most, rather than reffering to scripture, which is the final authority, have used opinion, reasoning and experiences to cite whether they agree or disagree.

It has moved away from single women missionaries to women pastors, which are two different things completely.

Also, people have descended to the O/N Testament
divide in order to 'win' the discussion.

Frankly, for as long as this thread runs, people will still gravitate toward what they 'believe', whether or not scripture supports what they believe.

God bless.

J
John173

I did want to make a comment regarding Don Richardson's book Eternity in their hearts. i read it a long time ago and thought it was good. However, the philosophy in the book is now one of the foundations of the 'redeeming cultures' teaching that is sweeping through modern missons - actively promoted by YWAM etc. This false teaching is very dangerous and teaches people that they can worship God within the confines of their previous culture/ religion (where as Paul teaches to flee from it) I am aware that this is 'off' subject but it did come up a few times. (I've recently read a paper stating that people that come for Buddhist back grounds can be referred to as new-buddhists not Christians as this will offend people in their home cultures)

I was not aware of this new twisting of our faith. It's sad how mankind can pervert just about anything. I still love the book, which is essentially about how various cultures all seem to have some practice that is found in the bible and can be used by missionaries to unlock the door to presenting the gospel to that culture. It really is a fascinating read.

In Him,

Doug

S
sermonindex

I also can't help but notice, that most, rather than reffering to scripture, which is the final authority, have used opinion, reasoning and experiences to cite whether they agree or disagree.

I'm glad you used the word "most" instead of all...

Krispy

I
iansmith

I prayed for a measure of grace in how to respond to this post. I’ll probably take a break from this topic after this post.

A word for the following.

KrispyKrittr says:
Frankly I don’t care what Loren Cunningham … have to say on the matter.
Loren Cunningham is the Co-founder of Youth With A Mission (YWAM), an ever-expanding global "family of ministries," born in 1960, which has reached into every nation.

Loren is also Co-founder and President of the University of the Nations (U of N), YWAM's global university. Since its inception in 1978, the U of N has grown to offer more than 800 courses and seminars (125 different courses/seminars).

Loren has personally gone to every sovereign nation on earth, all dependent countries, and more than 150 territories and islands, for the sake of the Gospel. This has given him valuable insights into global trends and uniquely prepares him to share God's strategies for world evangelism. His wisdom, experience, leadership understanding and call to build bridges of unity within the body of Christ have caused him to be sought out by leaders of nations and organizations worldwide. He speaks publicly in 30 to 40 nations a year, and has spoken to live audiences from a few to more than a million people gathered in one location.
http://www.ywam.org/contents/abo_wha_founder.htm


First you talk about submitting to authority, then when I bring authority to the table you spurn it, it seems that you don’t care about any authority except for your own, and the women you’d like to have submitting to you.

I’m going to do something here, I will pay for a copy of this book for you, I’ll order it and have it sent to your house. I don’t have much money to buy books of my own but I’d be more than willing, because it seems that you are in the clutches of something that isn’t Jesus and you need to realize that your heart is filled with darkness and it’s not of Christ! You talk about scriptural authority and the authority of Jesus, but you really only seem to care about your authority.

Ontheway says:
I did want to make a comment regarding Don Richardson's book Eternity in their hearts… However, the philosophy in the book is now one of the foundations of the 'redeeming cultures' teaching that is sweeping through modern missons - actively promoted by YWAM etc. This false teaching is very dangerous and teaches people that they can worship God within the confines of their previous culture/ religion (where as Paul teaches to flee from it) I am aware that this is 'off' subject but it did come up a few times.

Thank you for your first post ontheway, but I have one question for you, [b]have you ever been a missionary[/b]? Because I’m currently training to be a missionary and you don’t seem to know a thing about what you’re talking about. Don Richardson is a man of God, that is his main qualification.

The idea that you talk about is well known in missions, but I don’t think you’ve understood the half of it. So I’ll help you with it.

Let’s use someone from a Chinese background for our example, because they’re easy to work with. If you say that someone is Chinese, it means [b]ethnically, culturally, linguistically and sometimes religiously[/b]. Now there is certainly nothing wrong with ethnicity, you can’t change a person’s skin color. There’s generally not much wrong linguistically except maybe the use of profanity which most missionaries would discourage.

Often there isn’t much wrong culturally, in the case of China we might bring up something like Infanticide and Ancestor Worship as two cultural issues that would be directly opposed to the Gospel –but this certainly doesn’t mean that all Chinese customs are opposed to the Gospel. Fourthly there is the religious issue; well Paul even used the ‘unknown God’ in Athens to talk about the Gospel!

There are things that many Christian apologists, missionaries, historians, theologians etc. would agree are pagan/heathen allusions to the coming Messiah. Since we’ve all got knowledge of God written in our bodies, spirits and minds from the time of creation, it is no wonder that around the world every culture has gotten a glimpse of the true nature of God.

We have gotten the full picture in the Gospel, but that doesn’t mean we have to ignore the glimpses, we can use them for what they are, a doorway for that people group or culture to enter into a relationship and the full knowledge of their savior. In the case in Don Richardson’s book, this was the peace-child that the warring chiefs exchanged in order to declare peace; Mr. Richardson was able to share the Gospel by using this as an analogy for what Jesus had done for us on the cross. The evidence was already in the culture, but they didn’t have a full picture, and didn’t see how they needed Jesus.

And if you think that this is a new practice, well then we’re going to have to condemn Justin Martyr, Clemente of Alexandria and many of our dear early church fathers. Justin Martyr preached to the Greeks using illustrations from Socrates and Plato. Clemente often cited Greek and roman prophesies and explained how they’d been fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.

Back to my original case study, the Chinese –at what point does a Chinese person become a Christian? Is it when they get rid of all of their old customs, good and bad, is it when they start speaking English, is it when they give up their cultural heritage, is it when the change their skin color? Absolutely none of these things are entirely necessary for someone to accept the Gospel, which was the point of Don Richardson. We in the west often misunderstand salvation –we think that a person has to become like ‘us’ in order to become a Christian… well when a Chinese person accepts Jesus he can still speak Chinese, eat Chinese food, celebrate Chinese holidays, read Chinese philosophy and wear Chinese cloths… and they’ll still be a child of God!

enid
Frankly, for as long as this thread runs, people will still gravitate toward what they 'believe', whether or not scripture supports what they believe.

Enid, I honestly do care what people believe, because sometimes it’s not biblical. Everything I’ve spoken in this thread has been meditated upon in the word of God, in the character of Christ. I seek my authority first in the bible, and then I go to men and women of faith for the Praxis (practice). Of course we have to test everything by the word of God, but I feel that some people, especially in this topic are taking verses out of context and projecting them universally onto all situations –which is the beginning of heresy.

John173
I was not aware of this new twisting of our faith. It's sad how mankind can pervert just about anything.

John, be careful my brother. Its amazing how one word by one ‘brother’ on this forum can shame the testimony of an upstanding servant of God like Don Richardson. Instead of standing up for this man of God we’ve suddenly started condemning him because of the testimony of one man. That is unbiblical! Even if there were two men here condemning Don Richardson, there are more in defense of him. This isn’t the Spirit that is working here, this is the wicked heart of man!

J
John173

Brother Ian,

Just to clarify. I did not take Don Richardson to task. His books are wonderful testimony to the servants of God who have sacrificed so much for the gospel. I cannot claim to be highly missionary minded myself, so I have no direct knowledge on this matter. I do see the possibility, dare I say even probability that there are [i]some[/i] missionaries giving [i]too much[/i] room to the culture within their outreach.

Here in America we have the vast percentage of pastors who give in far too much to [i]our[/i] cultural standards. It seems logical to believe that at least some of the missionaries who have been taught their Christianity under these pastors would make the same error in the field.

This in no way is meant as a wholesale condemnation of missionaries or their work. As a rule missionaries have a far greater heart for the gospel, and thus God's truth, than do typical American preachers. That is what motivates them to go!

Never the less one cannot rule out the occassional misguided yet sincere missionary. We are after all still only human.

Blessings in Him,

Doug

S
sermonindex

First you talk about submitting to authority, then when I bring authority to the table you spurn it, it seems that you don’t care about any authority except for your own, and the women you’d like to have submitting to you.

Cunningham has no authority over me as I am not under his leadership either in the church or in life. I dont know man. Billy Graham has no authority over me. Etc etc etc... I am submitted to Jesus Christ, His Word... and then to a councel of elders in my local church.

The rest of your "comment" is not even deserving of an answer.

You talk about scriptural authority and the authority of Jesus, but you really only seem to care about your authority.

Be careful here... [i]Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.[/i]

Everything I’ve spoken in this thread has been meditated upon in the word of God, in the character of Christ.

Really? Including your judgemental tyrade against me?

I feel that some people, especially in this topic are taking verses out of context and projecting them universally onto all situations –which is the beginning of heresy.

What have I taken out of context? Projecting them universally onto all situations? Well... yea, I'm guilty of that, sure. I dont know how else to apply scripture except universally.

Ian... you and I have had some pleasant and constructive discussions on here, but one thing that wears on me is your habit of going off on someone. Your tyrade against me is uncalled for, and shows your immaturity. I've done nothing to deserve that. Your offended that I dont care what Cunningham has to say... I cant help that. I dont care what he has to say if it is not in line with scripture. I'm not calling him a heretic by any stretch of the imagination, I just dont agree with him on this. (and by the way... I know what he believes about this topic)

So chill out brother. Sometimes it's better to listen and learn when you're young.

I appreciate your offer of buying the book for me. I must decline. Take the money and go thru the McD's drive thru and pick yourself up a McGriddle. :-)

Krispy

I
iansmith

Krispy, if you must know, I read your comments first thing thismorning... I thought about saying something rash, but stayed myself. Then I spent some personal time in the word... the last night I was reading Psalms and I finished at Psalm 36, when I opened the bible reading your post I was struck by the first verse I read.

Psalm 37:1 Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.

God was clearly giving me a word not to get too frustrated over this topic. I after spending time in the word I joined in corporate devotions (every Tuesday at 8am) and spent some time meditating on how to proceed.

It was clear that the others in this thread were condemning Don Richardson falsely, so I knew that I had to reply, but for you Krispy, I'm so frustrated because I know you know better than this... sometimes it amazes me how someone with a big heart for Jesus can have a small heart towards Jesus followers.

I'm not saying that Loren Cunningham has athority over you, he's not my spiritual leader either. Keith Green who was a radical zealot met Loren and submitted himself to Loren as a Spiritual child... Keith Green recognized that Loren was a man who sought after the heart of God and God was using this man mightily.

How can you listen to a single sermon or read a single article on this website without submitting to that person's spiritual authority, yet you won't do it when it contradicts your own 'beliefs.' Even when the man is solid in his foundation in Christ and has far more spiritual experience than anyone I know of on this forum (please excuse me when I say that).

I was listening to George Verwer the other day, his message at Urbana 97, and he talks about how he melted when he met Billy Graham. George Verwer is someone I respect greatly and to see his respect for Billy Graham really put Mr. Graham in a new light for me. You see I've heard so much bad about Billy Graham from other Christians, like he preaches a cheap grace, or none of his converts go to church etc. A lot of people can talk about Billy Graham badly behind his back, but what happens when they meet a man of God face to face?

You see, when I hear that someone like Loren Cunningham or Billy Graham has a certain understanding of scripture and they have had practical experience in scripture, then I can learn from their interpretation. I can either choose to remain open minded and say 'hey, maybe I don't know everything, maybe Jesus has revealed himself to them in some way the he hasn't to me... maybe he revealed himself to them so that they would reveal him to me.' Instead of saying, 'well my beliefs contradict whatever they say and therefore nothing they say has any weight.'

You see, I don't think you're a bad guy Krispy, I just think that you're stubborn, and it's not a healthy stubborness, it's going to get in between you and seeing Jesus in new ways that he wants to reveal himself to you.

I strongly suggest you take an opportunity to listen to George Verwer, he has a great sermon, i don't remember the title, where he talks about 'mixed drinks.' I think it would be a great message for you to hear, it was good for me.

God bless you for your zeal Krispy, but please heed words of concern.

R
roadsign

I did want to make a comment regarding Don Richardson's book Eternity in their hearts. i read it a long time ago and thought it was good. However, the philosophy in the book is now one of the foundations of the 'redeeming cultures' teaching that is sweeping through modern missons - actively promoted by YWAM etc. This false teaching is very dangerous and teaches people that they can worship God within the confines of their previous culture/ religion (where as Paul teaches to flee from it

I’m sad to hear how two Godly works have drifted – no doubt because followers lost the original vision. Isn’t that is always the danger of second hand faith?

I am familiar with Don Richardson’s books, and I also went to a mission conference where he was the speaker. His heart as far as I had always known was to capture the redemptive analogies within the culture and use them to explain biblical redemption. This had nothing to do with melting down the Biblical message in order to accommodate the culture. It has to do with making it understood!

Loren Cunningham also had a godly vision, and was truly submitted to the Spirit. The miracles surrounding God’s leadings in his life are outstanding.

Both these writers are worth checking out. Thankfully they wrote books, so that we can still go back to the original version, and are not left to accept only the hand-me-down versions, or the opinions filtered through the minds of others.

By the way – a side note: Our own culture is replete with redemptive analogies. We can see it all over if we would just LOOK! They even come out of Hollywood, are in our music, our theatres, our shopping malls, traditions, in nature, in relationships, stories, sports, literature, newspaper, dreams, etc etc etc…

The tragedy is when we are so busy trying to throw out or come against every thing that is not godly, that we miss the very means of communication God may be using to reach the hearts of people. We miss countless opportunities to draw out redemptive analogies. May God clean up our vision.

‘Eternity in their Heats” is a book for our culture too.


Diane

I
iansmith

Diane,

I don't think either of these men has drifted away from the Gospel or from Jesus. I think in the Western church we just like beating up Spiritual people for what we see as one or two faults.

Then again, this is their lot as prophets... it's just a shame that among fellow saints they're not recognized as such. [b]We're so wary of 'false shepherds' that we go out and kill all the real ones[/b]. I'm serious, what minister, preacher, missionary or spiritual leader has a clean bill of heatlh? I'd be more wary if everyone was saying good things about them!! That would be a sign of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

But these two men are battle hardened Gospel warriors, they may have a larger measure of faith for the weaker in our midst than some of the rest of them, but they're also older and far more gentle than some of the people on this forum.

R
roadsign


I was listening to George Verwer the other day, his message at Urbana 97, and he talks about how he melted when he met Billy Graham. George Verwer is someone I respect greatly and to see his respect for Billy Graham really put Mr. Graham in a new light for me.

Ian! You are bringing forth some great points - and keeping us from straying into cyicism. Indeed God, by his Spirit uses the very means we may scorn.

I remember when, at a missions conference, George Verwer had me "pinned" to the back of the pew with his words. I was touched (that is a very mild way to put it!) He also was great for giving books away or selling them cheeply. (I've got some of them here.)

Thanks for reminding us about the various servants God has been using in our culture. It stirs within me a heart of gratitude.

By the way, since this is a thread about single women missionaries, I should also express a note of praise for these many sisters who have come to my churches in the past and preached passionate messages - not unlike our brothers Cunningham, Richardson, and Verwer. The ones I'm thinking of may not have big international names - but nonetheless, they are great in God's kingdom!

Diane

I
iansmith

George Verwer still gives away free books, if you read his website he'll say in his blog once and a while 'send me an e-mail and i'll send you a free copy of this book...'

http://www.georgeverwer.com/

George Verwer is an incredible man of God, sometimes its weird, like on his most recent blog post he's sitting on top of a motorcycle and talking about a motorcycle ministry for Jesus and thinking 'what happened to George Verwer.' Then I remember, nothing has happened, he's always had a big heart and welcomed people into the kingdom of all shapes and sizes.

We can quickly see the impact of a life like George Verwer (who came to Christ at a Billy Graham Crusade) in his ministry with Operation Mobilization that has impacted so many lives all over the world.

KP Yohannan was trained by George Verwer in India and went on to found Gospel For Asia...

Billy Graham according to many people preaches a Gospel of Cheap Grace... but George Verwer is fruit of Billy Graham's ministry and raised up thousands of missionaries world wide and trained people like KP Yohannan who is now raising up thousands more missionaries... and if you read anything by KP Yohannan you know he's all business.

That's what 'mixed drinks' is all about, these three men couldn't be more different except for their love and desire to serve Jesus Christ. Each one of them emphasizes different aspects of Jesus' character, but they work together, because they know that the parts that they agree on are greater than the parts they disagree on.

S
sermonindex

Ian... let me clear something up here. You think you know me, and you know what I am saying, yet you are so far from really understanding me that you sometimes make me chuckle. You need to stop presuming so much, jumping to conclusions... and basically judging when it is inappropriate to do so.

I am quite familiar with Loren Cunningham. I know of his relationship with Keith Green & Ravenhill. I'm very much aware of Billy Graham and all that he does (we're practically neighbors). I know of all these folks.

You act like I consider them heretics or something. I've never said that, nor have I implied it. I have the utmost respect for Dr. Graham... but there is also a lot about his ministry over the years that troubles me. Especially his ecumenical leanings.

Just because I disagree with certain teachings of a particular teacher does not mean I consider them heretics. I dont hammer on Ravenhill, yet I dont agree with everything he believed. And thats ok. There are people (obviously) who disagree with me. I dont loose any sleep over that. Personally I think it's impossible to agree with anyone 100%.

When I said I dont care what Cunningham has to say on the subject it's not a slam on him. It's a simple statement of fact... I dont care. I dont care what Keith Green thought about this subject. I dont care what a teachers who agrees with me thinks about this subject. I really dont. My Bible tells me what [b]God[/b] thinks about this subject, and in rather clear terms, and thats what I care about.

And thats true for any subject. You rarely (if ever) see me quoting from a teacher or an author on this forum... because what other people think does not matter.

Zac Poonen is quoted on here quite a bit... and if people want to discuss his teachings I think thats great. Go for it. But it's our responsibility to "test all things" and see if they are of God.

As for me wanting women to submit to me... I'm sorry, but that was a foolish accusation for you to make against a brother you dont even know. My wife is a godly woman who chose to submit to my leadership in our home. I didnt ask her to, she did so willingly, and to be honest... it's a very humbling thing to me. But I do not exercise (nor desire) authority over any women in our churches. Scripture tells them to submit to their own husbands, not to me. You tell me I have a big heart for Jesus, and then you accuse me of such spiritual abuse? Which is it, Ian?

You claim every word you post on here is meditated on with God... I think perhaps you arent meditating long enough or something, because the God you're meditating with knows me... and I doubt He would ok such accusations against me.

I hate to keep bringing up your age, but in your youthful zeal I believe you are not engaging the clutch before you shift your mouth (or in this case your keyboard) into gear. Your words today have not only been hurtful, but also slanderous.

Personally I would prefer to deal with this in private, but since you said all this publically it needs to be addressed publically.

You know nothing about me... and your accusations proove it.

I pray you will receive this rebuke and make some changes in how you address people on this forum.

Krispy

S
sermonindex


KrispyKrittr wrote:
No, Jeanette... my point wasnt lost. Just as there are no examples of women ministering in the temple (or ministering as the Levites did before the temple... please excuse my not being clearer on that) there are no examples in the NT of women as church leaders. (i.e. elders)

There is something everyone seems to miss here. Who is the leader in the home? If it is a scriptural family, then the husband is. Dont we all agree that the husband is required of God to be the spiritual leader? Since one of the qualifications of eldership in the local church is that he rules his house well [i](1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?))[/i] ... how can a woman be qualified? She isnt supposed to be ruling her house, her husband is. To say that a woman is in submission (and of course, I'm speaking of healthy spiritual submission) to her husband in the home, but then she is in spiritual leadership over men in the church (i.e. men in spiritual submission to her), is nothing more than confusion. And God is not the author of confusion.

And it's not about men being better or more spiritual than women. It's about God's order. God placed the man as the head of the woman. Why? The fall. And Paul makes that extremely clear. And thats not his opinion... those are words inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Women can serve God in ministry in many many ways. But two things they can not do... according to scripture... is teach men, and be in church leadership (i.e. pastors, elders). If you go back and read my original post you will see that I was extremely positive about women missionaries... but I think that has gotten lost because everyone has [b]judged[/b] me to be saying something I havent said. I've been very clear about what I know scripture to prohibit when it comes to women in the church. And people hate it when I get all black and white on an issue... but scripture couldnt be more clear. When scripture says something clearly, and people begin to make it hazy... it isnt scripture that is wrong.

Krispy


I think I agree with everything you say here except the last paragraph ;-) We've covered the ground about taking Scripture too rigidly before, so I've nothing to add. If you still insist on behaving like a lobster I can't stop you.:-P

Although your comments about the family are academic for me, as I'm not married.

Love in Jesus

Jeannette

O
ontheway

iansmith says:

Ontheway says:
I did want to make a comment regarding Don Richardson's book Eternity in their hearts… However, the philosophy in the book is now one of the foundations of the 'redeeming cultures' teaching that is sweeping through modern missons - actively promoted by YWAM etc. This false teaching is very dangerous and teaches people that they can worship God within the confines of their previous culture/ religion (where as Paul teaches to flee from it) I am aware that this is 'off' subject but it did come up a few times.


Thank you for your first post ontheway, but I have one question for you, have you ever been a missionary? Because I’m currently training to be a missionary and you don’t seem to know a thing about what you’re talking about. Don Richardson is a man of God, that is his main qualification.

The idea that you talk about is well known in missions, but I don’t think you’ve understood the half of it. So I’ll help you with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, iansmith you have certainly assumed an awful lot from a very short post that says nothing about myself. If you read what i wrote you will see that I read DR's book a long time ago and I thought it was GOOD! There is no attack of DR in my post. what I wanted to make people aware of is that the philosophy that he puts forward in the book is now being used as a foundation by worldwide groups to reinforce unbiblical methods of mission. In other words they take the GOOD of what is contained in that book and take it to an extreme, possibly even further than DR would agree with. That's what happens when you put a teaching out there. Some people who do not have the original revelation of the author will grab hold of it and take it to the enth degree.It happened to Paul and it still happens today.

I agree wholeheartedly with the simple analogy of the Chinese believer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iansmith says:
John, be careful my brother. Its amazing how one word by one ‘brother’ on this forum can shame the testimony of an upstanding servant of God like Don Richardson. Instead of standing up for this man of God we’ve suddenly started condemning him because of the testimony of one man. That is unbiblical! Even if there were two men here condemning Don Richardson, there are more in defense of him. This isn’t the Spirit that is working here, this is the wicked heart of man!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a little harsh iansmith. As I said earlier you know nothing about me, where I live or what I do (a little clue is to be had in the fact that I spend some of my time reading and commenting papers called 'New-Buddhists': A new method of reaching those in a Buddhist culture.:-)) I would suggest that your discerment of my motivation as being 'the wicked heart of man' may be a little off this time.

Much grace,

ontheway

U
UniqueWebRev

As an evangelist and web teacher, and happening to be be female at the same time, I have carefully researched precisely what Paul was trying to get at in limiting women to not Pastoring a church. For once, I will not bother with the supporting texts, as the subject can be considered somewhat self explanatory.

Since Paul evidently favored older widows as deaconesses, to teach under the guidance of a pastor, the equivalent of a female pastor under a male Bishop would still maintain the appropriate lines of authority, as would Elders in a Presbyterian Church, where the lines of authority over a female Pastor, particularly of a missionary church, would still be upheld.

In the first century church, women did not speak in a synagogue, and by custom, did not interrupt a male teacher at a house church with questions. Thereby, Paul, spoke to the problem, stating that he did not allow a woman to teach in a church, because the woman should ask her husband at a later time to explain what was taught, and not to interrupt the teacher, usually a cherished visit from one of the Apostles or Disciples.

The line of authority still runs from a husband over a wife; if there is no husband, then a pastor over the widow; if there is no pastor, then a bishop (always a male with strict guidelines for his qualifications) and if none of the above, as in a small house church, Christ Himself is over an older woman, who many teach in so far as she does not take authority over her husband or a brother, but offer only what knowledge that she has, then turning over the running of the meeting to the oldest male.

Only if the males do not wish to take charge as temporary pastor, then an older female may open the floor to discussion, presuming not to take authority over the males in question, but to keep the conversational ball going so to speak.

Thus is the line of authority held, from Christ to the Church, from Bishop to Pastor, from Pastor to married men; from married men to their wives, from Bishops to Pastors; male or female, depending on need; from Pastors or Christ to older widows to teach under his authority; thence to younger men, women and children, only in discussion, and not in authority.

Hope you can handle the direct line of headship, Krispy, as I have laid it out. As an ordained female person, I will not pastor a church unless absolutely ordered to by God, due to a lack in male personnel, due to war, or other disasters.

Jesus will not hesitate to use what He has, so long as the available lines of authority are kept to His glory.

Blessings,

U
UniqueWebRev

Krispy,

I truly think that the new guy was as gently as possible asking for guidance - you hit him little hard on not jumping on you in the middle of the thread.

Whether missionary or Pastor, the lines of Authority do have to be spelled out per the Gospel, and I think that's what he was trying to find out. He thought you were being harsh to us poor females, when we females have to have rhinoceros hides to survive amongst all you men!

Love you anyway!

As for me, being female, I covered every possible line of authority I could think of, in and out of church, and believe me, I am more than happy not to be called to fill a shortage of males as a pastor, and be misunderstood.

Edit: Krispy, this was about Intense4Him on page 1. He has been around a long time, just taking his first steps into the pirahna filled waters of discusssion, and I felt you missed his original membership day. I truly think that this is a gentle, humble guy that it's easy to discourage. Try not to ue all your cleats on those first venturing out - they bruise easily!

U
UniqueWebRev

Ah, Krispy!

I thought you'd fallen into a campfire again, but no, here you are, being my hero, not quoting people, but quoting my Lord. I thought you were cooked lobster for sure (with raw claws, pinching meanly at Jeannette, and her fork! And I was just getting ready to melt some butter for her, too!

Back to my point, I don't like to quote other writers than those in the Bible, and have a nasty habit of disputing them, alive or dead. But fortunately, no one disputes (much) with God.

Keep going, but please, keep pulling everyone back to lines of authority, missionaries or not. We all see to have gotten off track, and since I'm writing all at once, it's all coming out together!

Sorry, Bro!

Blessings,

S
sermonindex

[b]UniqueWebRev[/b]... what a breath of fresh air!

When I read your first post I have to admit that I was only 2 lines into it and I thought I knew where it was going... and I was wrong! I've read everything you've written twice just to make sure I understood where you were coming from, and my conclusion is....

...ready for this?

I agree with you! The only thing I dont really agree with (and it's a side issue anyway) is ordination, but not for the reasons you might think. I simply dont see "ordination" in the Bible, at least not the way it's practiced today.

ANYWAY... I agree with the lines of authority as you have spelled them out. And I am in total agreement that there are times when men simply will not step up to the plate, and God will put a woman in that place.

I also think there was another reason that Paul told the women to ask there husbands at home if they had questions about the teachings... it puts the husband into the role of spiritual leader. I absolutely love it when my wife comes to me with a spiritual question. It's a wonderful opportunity for us to open God's Word together and seek His counsel other than when we're doing family devotions. It builds me up as a man, and it builds her up as a woman knowing that she has a husband who loves her enough to try and care for her every need... especially her spiritual needs.

I think Paul's priority in that "command" was order in the church, with a secondary result of kinda forcing the husbands to take an active role as spiritual leaders.

Thank you, UniqueWebRev, for articulating in a more clearer way what I have been trying to say.

Krispy

R
roadsign

I also think there was another reason that Paul told the women to ask there husbands at home if they had questions about the teachings... it puts the husband into the role of spiritual leader. ...
I think Paul's priority in that "command" was order in the church, with a secondary result of kinda forcing the husbands to take an active role as spiritual leaders.

This would make a lot of sense. Yet, it doesn’t say or imply that in the Bible. Might I suggest that the women in the Corinthian church were googly-eyed over their spiritual leaders – arguing over who was the best – Paul, Apolus, or…. . (not exactly a good motive for asking them questions). Paul probably understood their hidden not-so-pure motive. So it wouldn’t have mattered to whom they asked their questions. In fact, their husbands could very well have been unbelievers, and, God knows, maybe boring ones at that. The point was, that these women needed to get their eyes off of the spiritual leaders, and remember their God-given calling at home - to respect, value, and love their husbands (ie, submit). Really, they could have sought the Lord for wisdom, just like scripture tells us to do when we don’t understand something. However, perhaps these women were not interested in what GOD wanted for them. They wanted a man – the best one!

We can see, still in our day, the strong tendency towards ungodly reliance on the voice of man rather than on God. That habit merely keeps church members in a state of immaturity. And it opens the door for a lot of ungodly types of “submission” in the church ex re females and males. Sure, it may make them feel good, and boost each other’s ego. But it is cruisin’ for a bruisin’. I would assume that you at least wouldn't have this problem where women are the ministers. (Could I be right?)

It really doesn’t say or imply in scripture that the way we make people become spiritual leaders is to put them in that role and require maturity from them. Wives can’t make husbands spiritual leaders anymore than church folk can make their pastors spiritual leaders by putting them in that role. That is a formula for disaster. I could give you a long list of examples. Also, just ask all the wives who have tried it on their unsaved husbands. It is really a form of manipulation – selfish and evil. It is the product of women not leaving their husbands in God’s hands and letting God be their “husband”. That's not to deny the need for wives to allow their husbands to minister to them in many various ways - including pointing out some of their blind spots.

I simply dont see "ordination" in the Bible, at least not the way it's practiced today.

True. Here’s something to consider: Ron Bailey said (somewhere): Leadership is an event, not a role. That way no one ends up leaning too heavily on one person; and that way various people, as and where they are led and enabled, pick up the baton. God is the head. And no one burns out.


I have learned that I must discern from whom I accept spiritual authority. In other words, I cannot allow anyone to force themselves over me just because they wear a “clerical collar”. That caution, I believe is biblical. My first authority is Christ. But as much as possible, I give others, as they are able/enabled, the opportunity to be a spiritual authority in my life. God uses others for my growth.

One day God opened the door for an elderly pastor to pastor me. He had suffered for years from an emotional illness, and lost his church as a result. But that day, while I was visiting, God (after a private prayer for deliverance) gave him a clear mind. It was an awesome moment – a way of offering him a gift, and also a way of being blessed myself.
That would tie in with what Krispy said:

I absolutely love it when my wife comes to me with a spiritual question


times when men simply will not step up to the plate,

I would say, simply can not. It takes years to develop spiritual leadership qualities – and requires divine enabling. It can’t happen just because you want it to.

Now, back to the thread topic: I feel sorry for all those males who, because of conditioning, cannot allow themselves to be blessed by a female spiritual leader – like some of these seasoned missionaries who have so much to offer, and are so very mature, spiritually. For some men’s consciences, it is a sin to let their “feet be washed” by one viewed as not “allowed” to have that role in their lives.

Diane

S
sermonindex

Diane... you bring up some good points. All I was doing was making an observation, not a doctrine. It may or may not have been one of Pauls intention, but it certainly resulted in wives coming to their husbands for spiritual guidance. This is a good thing.

Personally, thats just an observation I have made in that passage. If you dont see it, thats fine. No biggy.

Krispy

S
sermonindex


UniqueWebRev wrote:
Ah, Krispy!

I thought you'd fallen into a campfire again, but no, here you are, being my hero, not quoting people, but quoting my Lord. I thought you were cooked lobster for sure (with raw claws, pinching meanly at Jeannette, and her fork! And I was just getting ready to melt some butter for her, too!

Back to my point, I don't like to quote other writers than those in the Bible, and have a nasty habit of disputing them, alive or dead. But fortunately, no one disputes (much) with God.

Keep going, but please, keep pulling everyone back to lines of authority, missionaries or not. We all see to have gotten off track, and since I'm writing all at once, it's all coming out together!

Sorry, Bro

Blessings,

WebRev I'm a Biologist, I [i][b]like[/b][/i] lobsters. Not to eat, but live and waving their claws about, (but not at all mean with them). In other words, just like Krispy :-P

Did you know that live lobsters are usually navy blue in colour? They turn pink when boiled.

The recent posts have been much appreciated, though no time to comment on... By Krispy, WebRev, Diane etc

Blessings

Jeannette

R
roadsign

All I was doing was making an observation, not a doctrine.

No problem Krispy,

Indeed, there is a big difference between an observation and a doctrine! Frankly, I never thought about examining that passage you referred to in light of its context until a few years ago when I did some serious studying in 1 Corinthians. In fact, I took a week away to fast and study at a cottage in the woods. Without all the distractions, I was amazed at what I learned – what I had missed for years. And I can’t imagine what I have yet to discover from the book.

The following quote from my inductive and analysis Bible course textbook really speaks volumes:
“If you move straight from your initial reading of a passage to the application of that passage, you will remain tied to your previous understanding of the text.”

Indeed, it takes a lot of scrupulous, open-minded examination of the word in order to adjust the thinking to what it actually means.

Diane

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 96 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate