The Sin of Women Preachers

The Sin of Women Preachers!

By David J. Stewart

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer [allow] not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." ””1st Timothy 2:11-12

Feminism is of the Devil. One subject you'll never hear a woman preacher preach about is feminism. As with the Homosexual Movement, the Feminist Movement has changed the Word of God into a lie, "Who changed the truth of God into a lie..." (Romans 1:25). Feminists have even fabricated their own Feminist Theology. This is rebellion against God.

Here are some words of warning, likening harmful lodges to WOMEN PREACHERS, from the mighty evangelist and founder of the Sword of the Lord, Dr. John R. Rice...

"The lodges, I know, teach men to subdue their passions, to exercise brotherly love, to help each other in trouble. The lodges have helped some men to live better moral lives, and I have known rare cases in which the lodge ties were used to win souls. Many, many earnest, upright men strive to help themselves and to help others to a higher, nobler life by the lodges. Yet many Scriptures expressly forbid Christians to yoke up with unbelievers in the lodges. And the lodges, I have no doubt, as a general thing, deny the deity of Christ, deny the need for a new birth, and deceive millions of people who think they are saved without being born again. The lodges do good, but they do infinitely more harm.

So it is with women preachers. They do good, but how much harm they do! First, the rise of women preachers has meant the rise of multiplies sects of people with false doctrines of every kind. The Fox sisters and Spiritism, Mrs. White and Seventh Day Adventism, Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science, Mrs. Filmore and Unity, Mrs. Aimee Semple McPherson and the so-called 'Foursquare Gospel,' Pentecostalism and its vast majority of women preachers with the blight of sinless perfection doctrine, radical emotionalism, 'speaking in tongues' and trances, its overemphasis on healing that leads thousands to despair after false pretenses of healing””these things surely should warn us that there is infinite harm in women preaching.”

SOURCE: Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers; by Dr. John R. Rice; pg. 58; Sword of the Lord Publishers, P.O. Box 1099, Murfreesboro, TN, 37133; copyright 1941; ISBN: 0-87398-065-4

Amen! Women preachers do some good, but the harm they do far outweighs the good. The Bible plainly teaches for women to keep silent in the Church. 1st Timothy 2:12, "But I suffer [allow] not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” The best way to win souls is to obey God, and to do things God's way.

Women are Scripturally forbidden to be pastors, preachers or leaders over men in any capacity. The average woman today is a feminist in her philosophies. This is tragic and a curse upon America. This is why the sin of abortion is commonplace. This is why the sin of divorce is so prevalent. One sin begets another. Women preachers and feminism are synonymous.

Women have equal human rights, are of equal worth, and are not inferior to men in any way; BUT, woman do not have a right to usurp authority over men. Feminism DEMANDS equality in the area of authority, and cries "inequality" if they don't get it. This is what Lucifer said in Isaiah 14:14... "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." Lucifer just wanted EQUALITY, wanting to be "like" the most high.

Feminists claim they are simply asking for equality, to be "like" men in authority. Today, America is infested with women in authoritative power positions, and America is going to Hell because of it. Homosexuality is commonplace, abortion has become completely shameless, pornography is considered normal, divorce is highly encouraged nowadays, etc. Sin! Sin! Sin! Feminism is a Trojan Horse sin, that brings with it a slew of godlessness and woeful evils. Feminism and the Word of God are DIAMETRICALLY opposed to each other!

Meet Carter Heyward””an Episcopalian priest, a militant feminist, a lesbian who performs same-sex marriages, and a promoter of child sacrifice through abortion...

"If women were in charge, abortion would be a sacrament, an occasion of deep and serious and sacred meaning."

SOURCE: Carter Heyward, Massacre of Innocence, from a newsletter published by the National Abortion Federation.

Do you see what happens when women enter the pulpit? It was Solomon's wives who turned his heart away from the Lord, and introduced child-sacrifice to the pagan god Molech again in Israel (1st Kings 11:4-8).

Catherine Booth was an Avowed Feminist Rebel

Catherin Booth... avowed evil feminist of her time!One of the best worst examples of Christian Feministhood is Catherine Booth (wife of Salvation Army founder, William Booth). According to her biography, Catherine Booth was an avowed feminist. The Bible says, "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft..." (1st Samuel 15:23). Feminism is a horrible sin! Catherine Booth objected to the idea that women are the "weaker sex," which according to the Holy Bible they are (1st Peter 3:7). Booth was a staunch feminist, who publicly criticized her husband, yoked together with unbelievers, and shamed the name of Christ. She was a disgrace to the name of Christ.

It was not until 1860 that Catherine first started to preach. One day in Gateshead Bethseda Chapel, a strange compulsion seized her and she felt she must rise and speak. Later she recalled how an inner voice taunted her: "You will look like a fool and have nothing to say". Catherine decided that this was the Devil's voice: "That's just the point," she retorted, "I have never yet been willing to be a fool for Christ. Now I will be one." It was the Devil's voice alright, that seized her and compelled her to rise and speak, because the Bible states... "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1st Timothy 2:12). Catherine Booth, and rebellious women preachers today like Melissa Scott, have twisted the Scriptures in an attempt to justify their rebellion. God calls men to preach, NOT women.

Women are not to "usurp authority" over men in any capacity, at any time or in any place. Also, the word "church" is not mentioned in 1st Timothy chapter two. Thus, 1st Timothy 2:11-12 applies in the home, and in society in general. Women are to take a back seat and let the men drive. Meddling feminists are destroying churches, marriages and homes all across America. Say what you will, feminism is rebellion of the Devil, and it has infested many of our churches and homes today. Feminism is more deadly than arsenic, the AIDS virus and the Bubonic Plague all combined. The same fool that will laugh at what I just said is likely also a supporter of abortion rights. Abortion has killed far more people than arsenic, the AIDS virus and the Bubonic Plague ever have. It is estimated worldwide that 400,000,000 children have been murdered by abortion!!! Woe unto the wicked!

Women are to Keep Silent in Matters of Authority

What is meant by: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection"?

It simply means that women have different roles than men in the church, in the home and in society. Men and women are inherently equal in worth and dignity; but we do not have the same roles. Even the men in the church do not have equal roles. All are commanded to submit to the rule of the church elders.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection."

"Silence" or "quietly" is the Greek word Hesuchia, which means...

"To rest, to cease from labor. To lead a quiet life, said of those who are not running hither and thither, but stay at home and mind their business."

Thayer’s English Greek Lexicon of the New Testament

The same Greek word "Hesuchia" is also used in 2nd Thessalonians 3:12...

"Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread."

Paul is simply saying that while we're at work, we are not the boss, we are the employees. That puts us into a submissive role. At work we are equal with others as human beings, having equal rights; but we don’t possess an equal role with the boss. The boss is in charge, and we are to submit. This is an excellent illustration of the women's role in marriage, the church and society. There is nothing inferior or demeaning about a wife obeying her husband, anymore than an employee obeying a boss to keep his or her job. The same is true in a church.

Feminist Paranoia, Hatred of Masculine Authority and Insane Laws

The Biblical teaching of womanly submission is vastly different than the monstrous image that feminists paint of authoritative husbands and pastors. If you don't do your job at work, you are going to get written up or fired. It should be no different in the home. A husband who is married to a rebellious wife has no recourse of action nowadays, because society has gone insane with "Domestic Abuse" laws. A husband legally can't rebuke, scold or discipline his wife in any manner, except to beg her to do her job at home.

So then who is going to correct her when she fails to care for the children? ... when she fails to clean the house? ... when she doesn't care about the children's safety? Child Protection Services? A psychologist? A shrink will just send a struggling wife to a psychiatrist for drugs that'll totally debilitate her. Good luck finding a church that'll care about your family. Despite the thousands of excellent churches in America, many people are finding it increasingly difficult to find a decent church that believes the King James Bible, isn't money-hungry, and a church that believes in goes soulwinning. Most pastors today are simply interested in making a living, and continually pressure their members for more money.

Men are prohibited in America from commanding their homes anymore. In most places in America today, police are required by law to remove the husband from the home, by force if need be, merely based on an accusation by the wife that he was abusive towards her. After the O.J. Simpson murder trials, feminists used the event to make wide-sweeping changes to our nation's laws, now commonly referred to as the "O.J. laws."

If you removed women from the Satanic Charismatic Movement, it would disappear overnight. Wouldn't that be a great thing! Women preachers are notorious for demonic speaking-in-tongues, fraudulent faith healing, and greed. God likens rebellion to witchcraft in 1st Samuel 15:23. Women who enter the pulpit are disobeying God, openly and shamelessly, which puts them in the same boat as demonic witches.

How does all this fit in with women preachers? In many ways. As America has turned apostate, feminism has crept into our churches. As a consequence, woman have entered the pulpit in alarming numbers, bringing lesbianism and a host of other sins into the church. The sin of rebellion is a Trojan Horse sin. In other words, when a woman rebels against God by usurping authority over men, a host of other sins follow. Women must accept their role in the Body of Christ as those who learn "in silence (quietness) with all subjection." Women preachers are repulsive. It's just not right, ethically or Biblical. Wherever you find a church with a woman in the pulpit, you'll find a liberal-minded church that is infested with doctrinal heresies. This is why God told women to shut-up, and for men to do the preaching. So shut up!

The following information is by Wayne Wells:

Eve Was Deceived; Not Adam

Does the fact that Satan chose Eve for this first temptation imply that women as such are spiritually weaker than men? Do they have some kind of inherent weakness that makes them more vulnerable to temptation and sin, as some think 1st Peter 3:7 is suggesting? (being the weaker vessel)

Why Did Satan Choose Eve?

The question of why Satan chose Eve as the object of his temptation is made all the more relevant by Paul’s remark that "it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim. 2:14) This text does mean something.

Does it mean that Eve was chosen because Satan considered her more deceivable, more vulnerable than Adam? Was Eve the "weaker vessel" - emotionally or intellectually?

The Bible does not reveal Satan’s motive for beginning with Eve. It just records the fact that Eve was the first to be tempted and deceived, and the first to sin. We are not told whether it was part of a deliberate strategy of Satan, or if his choice was just random. But the fact that we do not know for sure why Satan chose Eve does not negate the force of 1st Timothy 2:14, which says that Eve’s being the one who was deceived does have something to do with women’s being prohibited from teaching men and having authority over men in the New Testament church.

The really significant point is that (according to 1st Timothy 2:14) it is not the transgression itself, but the deception that is being held against Eve. The fact that Eve was deceived by the Devil is in some way related to the fact that women are not permitted to teach men and have authority over men in the church. We simply cannot deny this connection. The problem, though, is to explain it. Exactly what is the connection?

It is possible that there is something inherent in women’s nature that somehow makes them more vulnerable to deception concerning spiritual matters and; therefore, less qualified to teach men and have authority over men in the context of the church. This would be consistent with Peter’s description of woman as the "weaker vessel" (1st Peter 3:7). Peter does not explain the nature of this "weakness," nor does he suggest that it constitutes some kind of flaw or fault in women. Whatever it is, it would be consistent with the role for which God created woman in the first place. That is to say, the characteristics that make a woman more strongly suited for her intended role in the family and church, make her weaker with reference to what is required for duties of headship and leadership. Such characteristics probably have to do more with her emotional rather than her intellectual nature.

Whatever this "weaker" nature may be, it is possible, if not likely, that this is what Paul has in mind as underlying the fact that Eve was deceived by Satan whereas Adam was not, and that this is the very same thing that disqualifies women from teaching men and having authority over men. If this is so, then the reason for this disqualification is not Eve’s sin at all. Neither is the disqualification some kind of penalty, either for her sin or for allowing herself to be deceived.

It is simply some inherent, created female characteristic that manifests itself in susceptibility to this kind of deception.

1st Timothy 2:13 gives as the primary reason for the prohibition the fact that Adam was first created, then Eve. In other words, the prohibition is grounded in creation, not in some aspect of the Fall. To say that what is true because of creation is also a part of the penalty for the Fall seems inconsistent. But if the prohibition is related to some inherent female characteristic which itself is related to vulnerability to deception, as the first explanation suggests, then 2:14 is also basing the prohibition on human nature as created, and not on the Fall as such.

The New Testament teaches a difference in the roles of men and women. The differences of roles are based on God’s choice of creation. God chose to make men and women different and they have different responsibilities as they work together to serve God.

1 Corinthians 11:3-9

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man... For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

1 Timothy 2:11-14

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

Feminism has been one of the most successful social movements in our nation.
Although there have been some legitimate goals, one of the results of this movement is to influence our culture to ignore the fact that there is a difference in the roles of men and women.

When we study the Bible, the issue is not one of equality, but of roles.

The Bible teaches an equality of men and women. Both men and women:

Are made in the image of God
Have dominion over the earth
Are joint heirs in Christ.
The Bible clearly teaches a distinction in the roles of men and women.

The early leaders in the feminist movement recognized this.

After their views became more accepted, others have tried to interpret the Bible to fit their views.

This is similar to what happened with the issue of evolution. Before Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell, no one ever thought that the Bible taught any evolutionary origins of life. After Evolution became accepted by many in society, religious people tried to bend and twist the Bible to fit evolution rather than allow the Bible to mean what it says. Result - the acceptance of the day-age theory and the gap theory. Neither of these ideas come from a careful reading of Genesis, but they are an effort to force Genesis to match the beliefs of the world.

The same has happened with the roles of men and women. Much of what is being promoted today does not come from a careful reading of the Bible, but is an effort to make the Bible to fit the views of the culture in which we live.

END

Biblical Conclusion

False Prophetess Joyce MeyerThe Word of God is abundantly clear that women are to be "silent," not only in the church, but in public as well. We read in 1st Peter 3:1-5... "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." A woman is to have a "meek and quiet spirit" at all times.

There is nothing "meek" about feminism. The dictionary defines "meek" as being "Humble in spirit or manner; suggesting retiring mildness or even cowed submissiveness; very docile." Feminism is not humble in any way; but is clamorous and demanding... "A foolish woman is clamourous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing" (Proverb 9:13). The dictionary defines "clamorous" as "Conspicuously and offensively loud; given to vehement outcry." Is there a more offensive group given to vehement outcry than feminists? I think not. The National Organization of Women (NOW) ought to be called The National Organization of Witches, because 1st Samuel 15:23 equates rebellion with the sin of witchcraft. Feminism is an act of rebellion against a Holy God. Women are commanded to submit to, and obey, their own husband.

Women preachers are ALL false prophets! A woman preacher cannot obey 1st Peter 3:5, i.e., to have a meek and QUIET spirit, when she is preaching with authority from a pulpit. Melissa Scott is a false prophet and is a good example of why women shouldn't be preachers. Boy, she can dazzle the crowds with her profound knowledge (so it seems), but the audience has no idea what she's talking about because she's rambling on incoherently. To watch her preach such utter nonsense with a man's authority is repulsive.

Don't forget that Eve was the one who was deceived; not Adam. We read in 1st Timothy 2:11-14, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." The Bible gives 2 reasons why women are not to preach, teach or lead men. The fact that God created Adam first is significant. The woman was created FOR the man. Like it or not, no woman will be happy until she is serving a man, i.e., her husband. Thus, men cannot lead if women are getting in the way. The modern idea of a husband and wife both working jobs, and hiring a stranger to raise their kids is insanity. 1st Timothy 5:14 stresses the importance of women being at home. A woman's place is in the home.

The Bible makes an issue of the fact that Eve, the first woman, was deceived by Satan. This is significant. Say what you will, women are more vulnerable to Satanic deceptions than are men. Do you know why there are over one billion hellbound Roman Catholics in this world? It's because of mamas! Do you know why Muslim kids strap dynamite on themselves to go blow up dozens of people? It's because of mamas!

"The spiritual life of a nation, city, town, school, church, or home never rises any higher than the spiritual life of women."

SOURCE: Dr. R.G. Lee (Payday Someday)

It's time for women to get back to raising children for the Lord, and to leave the preaching to God's men. Women possess the greatest power in this world, the power of influence; but when women usurp authority over men to do so, their influence becomes one of evil feminism and rebellion.

Women Preachers are Forbidden in the Bible

The Bible forbids women preachers, pastors, and leaders. The Communist agenda of feminism has turned American society upside down””deceiving women to murder their babies by abortion, destroy their families with rebellion, and throw away their marriages by divorce. Lesbianism is flourishing in America, and every other sin because of the evils of feminism (which is rebellion against God's authority). Feminism has nothing to do with women's rights; it has to do with rebellion against masculine authority.

Just as Lucifer wanted to "be like the most High” in Isaiah14:14, and Eve wanted to be "as gods” in Genesis 3:5; likewise, so do evil feminists today want to be equal in authority in the marriage, home, and church. The Word of God tells women to obey their own husband, remain silent in the church, and to "marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan” (1st Timothy 5:14-15). Career woman are turned aside after Satan, freezing their eggs, and living for filthy lucre.

Here is an excellent quote from the mighty evangelist, Dr. John R. Rice (1895-1980)...

And again Paul says that the weakness of a woman and her aptness to be misled is shown because "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Satan found he could deceive Eve easier than he could deceive Adam. God made a woman after such a fashion that she should be a comfortable and obedient helpmeet, a mate who would fit to his will and plans.

So, in the nature of the case, women are not as well fitted for executive authority. If women are more easily led, they are not as good leaders. Every pastor knows that women are easier to enlist in good work. But careful observers must admit that women are also easier led into false doctrine and into errors of various kinds.

But the argument here in 1 Timothy 2:14 is that Satan was able to deceive Eve when he could not deceive Adam, and that this is an evidence that women should not be placed in authority in churches and in Christian work. If he could deceive Eve easier in the Garden of Eden, he could deceive women easier now. This means that women leaders are more likely to lead into heresy in doctrine and unscriptural practice than men. Women are not fitted to teach men or usurp authority over men, says this Scripture.

But also, in verse 15, God has a special duty and privilege for women in childbearing. If they submit themselves to God's plan in humility and meekness, then they shall be rescued, and preserved, when pangs of childbirth are come upon them. When godly women have found sweet comfort and ease and help in the time when they go down into the valley of the shadows to bring forth a child for the Lord, receiving help from God because they were willing to take a woman's place in submission.

Let us consider carefully verses 11 and 12.

1. The woman is to learn in silence, with all subjection.

2. A woman is not to teach. Certainly not to teach men, but evidently not to teach general groups, including men.

3. A woman is never to have authority over men.

4. And then again it is emphasized that a woman is to be "in silence” in such public services.

We know well that God does not want Christian women to remain silent outside the mixed public service. Titus 2:3,4 plainly commands "the aged women likewise . . . that they may teach the young women.” Here we are plainly told that old women may teach young women, and should do so. But they are to teach them, among other things, "to be obedient to their own husbands” (v. 5). Women are to be in silence, then, as far as teaching the whole church is concerned, or teaching men, or groups including men, but older women may teach younger women.

...So when Paul said, "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence,” it seems clear to me he is forbidding a woman to take a place as a public teacher of men. A woman is to be silent in the public assembly in the sense that she is not to teach as an official of the church. She particularly is to be silent as far as teaching men is concerned. That is plainly forbidden. No woman, according to this passage, is to be allowed to teach a class of men, or to teach a mixed class including men, nor to teach the church in a public assembly, including men.

It is equally clear that no woman is to take a place as an official of a church, having authority over men. No woman could be pastor of a church, according to this plain verse. To do so would be a usurpation of authority that was forbidden her.”

In New Testament churches a woman's place was to be taught, not to teach. A woman's place was to be silent, not to be a public speaker. A woman's place was to be in submission, and not to be in authority. Certainly this Scripture forbids any woman to be a preacher or pastor or evangelist.”

SOURCE: Dr. John R. Rice; quote from Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers; pg. 41-43; copyright 1941 by SWORD OF THE LORD publishers, Murfreesboro, Tennessee; ISBN 0-87398-065-4

Women are going to ultimately do what they want to do, and then look for excuses in an attempt to justify their decisions. For example: Women don't have an abortion for any particular reason; but rather, have an abortion because that's what they wanted to do in the first place, and then they look for reasons to justify their decision.

The Evils of Divorce and Feminism

Women do the same thing when they file for divorce, grasping for any and all reasons they can find in a sinful attempt to justify divorce. Nearly all women who file for divorce demonize their husband, sinfully railing against him in self-righteous hypocrisy; but God hates divorce and there are no Biblical grounds for it. Only by wrestling the Scriptures can the sin of divorce be justified. Jesus plainly taught that divorce only happens "because of the hardness of your hearts”(Matthew 19:8).

Satan has deceived feminist women today, INDOCTRINATING them to feel liberated by killing their own babies, steal their own future of a happy family, and destroying their own marriages. Satan saw you coming and you swallowed the bait hook, line, and sinker. Satan skinned you alive and left you miserable, childless, and lonely. I don't care how much money you make, how many vacations you take, how successful a career you may have, how big of a house you may own... a house does not make a HOME! It is God's will for every woman who is able, to bare children and raise them AT HOME.

Our modern U.S. society is so anti-Christian, anti-family, and anti-American. We are living in a morally-toxic society where it's neighbor rising up against neighbor. Feminism even has women freezing eggs (endlessly searching for the non-existent Mr. Right). Feminism will ruin your life ladies. Don't let modern culture dictate how you live. You don't need all of the electronic toys and conveniences of modern society. What you do need is a Christian home. Don't allow demons into your home through the TV, worldly music, and dirty women's catalogs. These are evils plaguing American society. It's the same women who laugh and scorn at my preaching who have abortions, divorce their husbands, and support gay rights. No one has a right to be immoral. Freedom is the right to BE wrong, not to DO wrong. Sin is a choice.

The problem today is that most people today put God on trial, coming up with all sorts of hypothetical situations to question the wisdom of God. What if my husband tells me to drink beer? Should I obey him? What if a mother cannot afford to care for her baby? Shouldn't she have an abortion? These are the thoughts of the wicked. God has told us how to live in the Bible. God tells us in Proverb 3:5-7 not to lean upon our own understanding; but rather, to trust the Lord and acknowledge Him in all our ways. God tells us to fear Him and to depart from evil. You either want to do things God's way or not.

The Bible forbids women from entering the pulpit to teach men, nor are women to take on positions of leadership over men. To do so is a sin. Eve meant well, but she destroyed her own life, and led her husband into sin. Sin always takes you farther than you wanted to go, keeps you longer than you planned to stay, and costs you more than you intended to pay. Satan is a beautiful liar (2nd Corinthians 11:13-15).

No doubt, many women today will laugh and joke about the things Dr. Rice has said from the Bible about women preachers; but the Bible says what it says. God said what He meant, and meant what He said. We live in a careless generation of scoffers, rebels, and critics. It doesn't surprise me that whorish woman who dress immodestly, dance sensually in public, idolize Rock music stars, abort their babies, support lesbianism, and sit around watching heathen soap operas and vile prime-time TV shows, would also mock my preaching from the Word of God. There is no middle ground on the issue of women sharing authority in the home, nor in the church.

Certainly, a husband ought to submit to his wife in some areas because he loves her (Ephesians 5:21); BUT, it is wicked sin when a wife fails to completely obey her husband in any areas where the husband makes a decision. The wife must submit first before the husband submits in any way to please his wife. Many divorces are caused by a rebellious wife who places DEMANDS upon her husband and he won't budge, so she divorces him in rebellion and hated because she cannot get her sinful way. Rebellious women often file for divorce as an expression of a rebellious heart; she wants to wear the pants, and so she usurps authority over her husband by using her marriage license as a weapon in court against him. God will judge such women for their rebellion (witch God equates with witchcraft in 1st Samuel 15:23). It is wickedness (Jeremiah 3:20).

God will have the last Word and is our Judge. Those who obey God will be oh so glad in eternity; but those who laugh at God's man, reject the Word of God, and live selfish lives of sin doing their own thing, will be very sorry. END

"IN EVERY THING”

"Why does not the Bible limit a wife's obedience to her husband? Why does the Scripture not say, as many wish it did say, that a wife should be subject to her husband as long as he is right and true to the Bible? Or why does it not say, as Mrs. Goforth interprets it in How I Know God Answers Prayer, that a wife should be subject to her husband in all matters but spiritual matters? But that is not what the Bible commands. Rather the Bible says, 'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord,' that is, as unto Jesus Christ, and so of course in complete submission. And again, 'Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing' (Eph. 5:22,24).”

SOURCE: Success-Prone Christians, by Dr. John R. Rice; chapter 2; pg. 44,45

Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers!

By Evangelist John R. Rice (1895””1980)

1st Corinthians 11:3-15 tells us that since the man is the head of the woman, and there is a fundamental difference between men and women, that difference should be symbolized in the ways men and women wear their hair.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head ...

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. ... For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. ...

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

Throughout the Bible it is stressed that men and women are different. A man is not like a woman. A woman is not like a man. It is a sin for a woman to try to appear like a man. God has one place for a man and a different place for a woman. For this cause, in Deuteronomy 22:5 we are commanded: "A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." It is a sin for women to appear masculine. It is equally a sin for men to appear effeminate. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9 names some of the unrighteous that "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." And among the adulterers and fornicators and drunkards and thieves and covetous and extortioners, God put the effeminate. To be effeminate is a horrible sin in God's sight. And the first sin with which God chided Adam, after the fall, was this:

"Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife..."

I say, God has given man one position and woman another position and this difference in their position should be shown by men having short hair and women long hair. "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven" (1 Corinthians 11:4,5). And verse 6 continues: "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

Man is made in the image of God. God is a masculine God. The masculine pronoun is used of God everywhere in the Bible. That foolish and unscriptural title given by a woman preacher, Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy, "Our Father-Mother God," dishonors God. God is not effeminate. God is not feminine, but masculine. And man is made in the image of God. On the other hand, a woman is not made so much in the image of God, but in the image and as a mate to man. So the Scripture says: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."

Blessed is the woman that remembers this; her glory is in being a help to a man, and in submission to her husband or her father. And long hair is the mark of this submission, the mark of this femininity.

A man should not pray or prophesy with his head covered. That would dishonor his head, says the Scripture. Men instinctively know that it is shameful to wear hats in public service, and reverent men remove their hats when they pray. Likewise, men instinctively know that they ought not to have long hair. A man has short hair, and this symbolizes the fact that he can approach Jesus Christ freely and that he takes the responsibility as the head of his home.

On the other hand, a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. Now look at verse 15 and you will see plainly that God is not talking about a woman wearing a hat or veil. Verse 15 says: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." A woman, when she prays, should have a covering, some symbol that marks her as an obedient and surrendered wife or daughter. Her long hair is given her for a covering, and a woman who does not have her head covered in that way dishonors her head. And verse 6 says that it is a shame for a woman to be shorn, and she ought to be covered. This symbolic covering or veil for a woman is long hair. Long hair is a mark of a woman's womanliness in God's sight, and is plainly given her for that express purpose, as verse 15 says.

New Testament ceremonial symbols

Some people think that there are no religious ceremonial symbols for New Testament Christians, but they are wrong as just a moment's thought will show you. Baptism is a precious ceremony, picturing the burial and resurrection of our Saviour. It pictures also that the believer in Christ is counted dead with Christ and is raised up to live a new life. It pictures also the blessed hope of the resurrection from the dead, when all the bodies of the saints will come out of the graves. Baptism pictures a precious truth and is so important in its doctrinal teaching that it must not be ignored.

Likewise, the Lord's Supper or Memorial Supper of bread and the fruit of the vine pictures the broken body and the spilled blood of our Saviour, and the Lord Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of me." The Christian thus by partaking of the bread and grape juice pictures the fact that he has partaken of the body and blood of the Lord by trusting Him for salvation.

In ordination of ministers and deacons, the ordaining council or presbytery lays hands on the head of the candidates, symbolizing that these are to receive authority from God, and more than that, that they need to receive and should receive the power of the Holy Spirit.

James 5:16 tells us that the elders of the church are to be called in cases of sickness and are to anoint the sick with oil in the name of the Lord and that the prayer of faith shall save the sick. Oil symbolizes the work of the Holy Spirit, whose miracle-working power we have a right to claim when God gives the faith for it.

Thus you see that New Testament Christians have a number of symbols, ceremonies which have a precious and holy meaning. And we must add to this list the symbol of short hair for men, and long hair for women. Men wear short hair as a sign that they assume their responsibilities as made in the image of God and as rulers over their households. Women are to wear long hair to symbolize their submission to husband and father, taking their place with meekness as women surrendered to the will of God and subject to the authority God places over them.

Because of the angels

In the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians we find a remarkable teaching which ought to stir the heart of every woman. The Lord says, "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." The word power here means authority. A woman ought to have a symbol of her husband's authority or her father's authority on her head. That is, a woman should wear long hair to indicate that she is submissive to the authority God has put over her. And this special reason mentioned here for a woman having long hair is that angels look on, and for their sakes a woman needs to have long hair.

The angels of God are all about us. People often think of angels as remaining in Heaven and only coming to earth on rare occasions to bring some message. But that is not true. The chief business of the angels is on earth, not in Heaven. Heb. 1:13,14 shows that the angels are not sitting on the right hand of God but "are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" The angels are ministering spirits, sent to wait on us who will one day fully inherit our salvation.

Angels appeared to Jacob on a ladder reaching from Heaven, as the young man slept with his head on a stone, and "behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it." Angels whose work is on earth ascend to Heaven evidently to make report, but they descend again to take up their work. When Elisha, the prophet of God, was at Dothan, unseen to other eyes the angels of God made a ring of fire around the city with their "horses and chariots of fire" (2 Kings 6:17). The Lord Jesus says about little children, that "their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10). And Psalm 34:7 says that "the angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them."

So angels are all round about us. And they are surpassingly concerned about our lives. Our eyes are blinded! We think that the other world, the unseen world and spirit beings are far, far away, but that is not true. And how angels do listen when a woman kneels to pray! For the sake of angels who always are near, Christian women should especially be careful to have long hair--"because of the angels," the Scripture says.

How are angels concerned about a woman's hair? I think that not only would angels be grieved by this mark of rebellion against husband or father and against God, but angels would be tempted, likewise, to rebel.

We know that some angels are fallen. I understand the Bible to teach that Satan himself was Lucifer, an archangel who became ambitious and rebellious and said, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" (Isaiah 14:13). He wanted to be like God (Isaiah 14:14), and was not willing to be subject, just as many women want to be equal to their husbands instead of being subject to them. And Satan fell. So a great group of angels fell, too. Rev. 12:4 may suggest that a third of the angels fell. I do not know how many. But actually, these angels are now chained in darkness, awaiting judgment (2 Pet. 2:4). Angels can fall, and in the past angels have fallen into sin.

This is especially sad when we remember that Christ never became an angel and did not die for angels. There is nothing said in the Bible about the redemption of fallen angels. If God has any plans for saving angels, He has not revealed them to us.

What sins did angels commit when they fell? They did not get drunk. They did not commit adultery, for it seems that angels are sexless beings who neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matt. 23:30). We suppose that heavenly angels, accustomed to the beauty and glory of Heaven, are never covetous. No, the sin of angels is the sin of rebellion.

Thus, when a woman with bobbed hair and a rebellious heart comes to pray, angels who are near and see her head and see her heart are tempted to sin; are tempted to commit the sin which such women commit, the sin of rebellion against authority. Because of the angels, every woman should wear long hair and be careful that she does not have a rebellious heart lest she should be a curse to the angels God has sent to be our ministers and guardians.

From this Scripture it becomes evident how hateful is the symbol of bobbed hair to God. And how it reveals the stubborn self-will of the modern woman who is no longer willing to take the place God assigned to godly women. I beseech the reader that if you are a woman you consider how God must feel toward this mark of rebellion, bobbed hair. No wonder that 1 Corinthians 11:5 says that every woman with a bobbed head has a dishonored head. And 1st Corinthians 11:6 says that it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven and that she ought to have a covering. And 1 Corinthians 11:15 says that long hair is given her for this covering.

Long hair, the glory of a woman

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." (1 Corinthians 11:11-15)

Let no woman be discouraged because God insists that she shall take a place of subjection and wear the mark of humility and femininity on her head. It is true that the man was created first and then woman created second as a helpmeet, as we were told in verses 8 and 9 above. But dear woman, be not grieved. Long hair is not a shameful mark. Rather, it is a mark of glory. God did not mean for the man to be without the woman (v. 11). Both are necessary. Each one is a complement for the other. Each is dependent upon the other. And God's way is the fitting and beautiful and happy way.

Since the meaning is made clear in this passage, I suggest that you take heed to verse 13: "Judge ye in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If bobbed hair means rebellion, if it means a sinful disregarding of a woman's place, if it flaunts that rebellion in the face of the angels of God and tempts them to sin, if it means that a woman is trying to be masculine and is giving up her feminine beauty, then doesn't even nature itself teach you that it is comely for a man to have short hair and a woman to have long hair? And isn't it clear, as verses 14 and 15 say, that long hair for a man is a shame, but for a woman, it is a glory to her?

If women only knew the charm and beauty of long hair to intelligent men and the reverence it inspires for godly women, they would never cut their hair.

I look back with the tenderest emotion to the vision of my mother, even on her bed in her last sickness, when long braids of black hair lay on her pillow beside her head. It is sweet to believe that I will see my mother again, as a womanly woman with beautiful long hair. I remember with what pride I saw my bride take down her long hair and brush it. To me even then, though I did not know the Scriptures on this subject, long hair was a symbol of something holy and beautiful in women, something tender and pure. Long hair in any woman makes her appear more womanly, and there is a sweet and pure charm for men in the feminine beauty of long hair.

One of the most touching stories in the Bible is that given in Luke 7:37,38:

"And behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment."

How Jesus seems to have delighted in having His feet wiped with the long hair of this woman's head. The Lord Jesus forgave and saved this woman, but she could never have given this beautiful mark of her devotion and surrender and love, drying her tears from His feet with her hair, if she had been a modern woman with bobbed hair. Don't you think this story shows the Saviour was pleased with her long hair? I can imagine that even after the Saviour was crucified, this woman, saved from a life of sin, would brush her long hair happily and remember that with it she had had the joy of wiping the feet of the Saviour the day her sins were forgiven.

I well remember knowing one lost man who scorned the attempts of a number of loved ones to talk to him about his poor, lost soul but who listened with most reverent respect to his sister-in-law, because she had long hair and he believed her to be the modest and pure-hearted woman that her hair indicated. He did not know the Scriptures, but he knew instinctively that God meant for a woman to be womanly. Just as crude and unlettered men seem to know they should take off their hats when they enter public worship or when people pray, so they likewise instinctively know that women, to keep their place as modest and feminine women, should have long hair.

Many a woman feels this though she cannot put it in words. I suppose that literally scores of women have told me how, when they heeded the dictates of fashion and finally had their long hair cut off, they looked in the mirror and wept inconsolably at their loss. And well they might! The Bible says that long hair is a woman's glory and to have it shorn is her shame and dishonors her head.

The modern woman wonders why now she must chase a beau down, as her mother never did. The modern woman wonders why men do not rise up on the bus or streetcar to give her a seat. The modern woman wonders why some men feel so free to curse in her presence, and to use language that no respectable woman of the past generation ever heard. Yes, the modern, masculine, pants-wearing, cigarette-smoking, bobbed-haired woman has fallen from her pedestal. She is not reverenced by men as her beautiful and modest mother was.

These days men have come to feel that if a woman will not fill a woman's place, she shall not have a woman's protection and respect. Men desert their wives as never before in the world. Very few men nowadays feel reverently about a woman's body. Boys who have dates with these bobbed- haired, smoking, strong-willed, modern girls, expect to kiss them and fondle them as they please, or to kick them out of the car to walk home. The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without restrictions and without chaperons and obey nobody. A man who marries such a woman, I say, does not expect to support her. The modern girl is very often expected to work and help make a living.

In 1 Pet. 3:7 husbands are commanded to give "honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel." When women cease to admit that they are the weaker vessels as God's Word says they are, then they lose this honor that men through the centuries have delighted to give to women. I say, the honor, the deference, the courtesy, the protectiveness that practically all men, good and bad, once offered to good women, has almost disappeared!

Oh, women, what have you lost when you lost your femininity! When you bobbed your hair, you bobbed your character, too. Your rebellion against God's authority as exercised by husband and father, has a tendency, at least, to lose you all the things that women value most. If you want reverence and respect from good men, if you want protection and a good home and love and steadfast devotion, then I beg you to take a woman's place! Dress like a woman, not like a man. Have habits like a woman. And if you want God to especially bless you when you pray, then have on your head a symbol of the meek and quiet spirit which in the sight of God is of such great price.

Is it a sin for little girls to have bobbed hair? The Bible does not separately discuss that question as far as I know. But a girl should be subject to her father and should have the "symbol of authority" on her head. In our own home I felt that since my girls would grow to be women, they had better begin to feel like women and act like women. So all of my six daughters have long hair. And how beautiful it is! And when the matter is settled while they are young, and the character is fixed into the lines of womanly behavior and womanly thought and ideals, then I do not expect a great clash and struggle after they are women. Why should not girls be taught that long hair is a glory, as God has said? Why should they not revel in the thought of being women, wives and mothers? Though the Bible gives no separate teaching about girls, it implies clearly that the same rules would apply. For instance, Numbers chapter 30 mentions a daughter's responsibility to her father along with a wife's responsibility to her husband.

"If any man seem to be contentious"

This passage on bobbed hair, 1 Corinthians 11:1-6, ends with this statement:

"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

On the matter of submitting to authority, there are frequently those who "seem to be contentious." Self-will dies hard, even in a Christian. We want our own way. Some of the Christians who were servants and slaves thought that now they were Christians they need not obey their masters. And children felt that now they were saved, they were equal to their parents. Citizens felt that they now need not obey their heathen rulers, and wives naturally felt themselves equal to their husbands. Were they not saved just the same way? Were not all members of the body of Christ alike? But to such people the Lord plainly gave command as you see in Colossians 3:18-25, Ephesians 5:22-6:9, and elsewhere.

No doubt some wives wanted now to cut their hair and act like men. And perhaps some men encouraged it. Some men do now. But to all such Paul said, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." No custom of bobbed hair was allowed for women in New Testament churches. Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, who had more to do with founding churches and their control than any other man who lived, plainly said that this custom was never recognized and never allowed. Bobbed hair is unscriptural, and the idea of it was utterly repugnant to New Testament Christianity.

After all, dear woman, if you are a Christian, if you love the Lord Jesus, if you acknowledge Him as the Master of your life, then His command ought to settle the whole question. To please Him, trusting Him to make it worth while, I would start out to be the kind of woman that this Scripture pictures. I would, with a surrendered heart, submit myself to the authority God has placed over me, whether of husband or father. I would have a symbol of my femininity on my head, long hair picturing my submission to the will of God. When I prayed, I would not be a temptation to the angels nor an affront to God. And I would have the glory, the feminine beauty, that every true and godly woman has when she is wholly submitted to the will of God and when that pure heart and meek and lovely spirit are indicated in the way such a woman dresses and speaks and lives and wears her hair.

Is it really hard to decide when you know exactly what the Bible says you ought to do?

For a more literate read on the subject than that offered by Bumpkin Books, see The Magna Carta of Women by Jessie Penn-Lewis.

http://lighthouselibrary.com/read.php?sel=3138&searchfor=||PENN-LEWIS,%20JESSIE||&type=&what=author

Amen, good book!

Dear repentperish,

As to other users on SermonIndex we have said the same thing, it is ok for saints to post an article for discussion or some topic but there must not be repetitive posting which can attribute to an agenda on a specific subject and in the end just cause hurt, division and no-one is changed on the matter.

It is ok to charitably discuss the issue of women teachers and Scripturally what it says. We would ask that other threads not be opened also on the subject and that all would be done in love.

Thank you very much wayneman for that excellent article/book by Mrs P-Lewis including the scholarly exergesis by Dr Bushnell regarding the texts in question.

I am working my way slowly through it and it has been extremely illuminating. it is one of the most important papers I have read and will be of much help to me during the theological training on which I have embarked.

ginnyrose, rather than asking men here to read it, I think you should be making that request to all of the women that you know especially those who have received seminary or Bible school training. Not many men are going to be willing to stick their necks out, against the tide, but the more women that are educated regarding the matter, and speak out the better. It is much easier to silence the few. It is well overdue that the subjection of women in the Christian church, which is repeating that of the Jewish religion, catches up with the times and is rejected as with other discriminations. Just a small example:

"Therefore the words "it is not permitted'' and "as also saith the law" must refer to some "rule'' outside of Scripture. There was no other but the Oral Law of the Jews, appealed to by the Judaizers in the church in their efforts at that time to bring Christianity back within the confines of Judaism. That the words "as saith the law" referred to the Oral Law of the Jews is recognized by some scholars, for a well known lexicographer, in his Greek-Latin Lexicon, says that "as saith the law" refers to the Jewish Oral Law, which did teach the silencing of women. The Talmud also taught that it was '' a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men" almost the very words used in the language quoted by the Apostle. Again, the reference to the "law" is, of itself, sufficient to show that the Apostle, who labored so earnestly to free the Christian Church from the very shadow of Judaism, as his epistles show, was not expressing his own conviction in the language attributed to him. Paul never appealed to the " law" for the guidance of the Church of Christ, but, on the contrary, declared that believers were " dead to the law by the body of Christ" (Rom. 7:4), that they might serve in newness of spirit and not the oldness of the letter (v. 6). Then how could he say consistently, "Let the women keep silence...as also saith the law," even were such a prohibition to be found in the law of Moses?

Verses 14 and 15: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonour to him.� But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." A simple statement in these verses has again been turned into a question by the punctuation added "centuries later than when St. Paul wrote these words." The Apostle thus appears to make statements that are obviously contrary to the facts of nature and of history. For, as Dr. Bushnell says, ''nature" does not teach that if a man has "long hair" it is "a dishonour" to him, e.g., millions of men in China wear long hair, and ''nature has never taught them that it is a shame." Furthermore, the Corinthians to whom Paul was writing boasted that they were ''descendants of the longhaired Achaeans, celebrated in the Greek poem, Homer's Iliad." It would therefore be a most strange question for Paul to put to them, while to Jews long hair in fulfillment of religious vows (Num. 6:1-21) was a glory, not a shame.

But why does Paul refer to hair at all? Again we need to understand Jewish customs. Perpetually Paul had to be countering not only the customs but the influence of Judaistic thought upon Christians only gradually emerging into apprehension of the full liberty of the gospel. The Apostle had just said that a woman should have "authority over her own head'' to veil or unveil as she judged best. But the Oral Law had made unveiling so disgraceful a thing that Christian women would find it difficult to put away the veil, even when circumstances were favorable to doing so. The Apostle then meets this difficulty by saying that the woman already had a veil that was a glory to her; her own hair and so she need not be ashamed of uncovering it, whatever the Judaizers might say."

THE MAGNA CHARTA OF WOMAN BY: JESSIE PENN-LEWIS

I have ordered Dr Bushnell's book 'God's Gift to Women' which I am sure will be an interesting read.

God's role for women was to be a 'helpmeet' in everything that he does but unfortunately, men have excluded women in the important work of Bible translation and that is why we have so many errors of translation regarding womens role in the church. The church is sadly suffering a great deal because men did not obey God during the tranlation work they took over as 'mens' work by originally excluding women from learning the original languages..

GOD'S WORD TO WOMEN Dr K Bushnell.

The world, the Church and women
are suffering sadly from
woman’s lack of ability to read the Word of God in
its original languages. There are
truths therein that speak to the deepest needs of a
woman’s heart, and that give light
upon problems that women alone are called upon to s
olve. Without knowledge of the
original, on the part of a sufficient number of wom
en to influence the translation of the
Bible in accordance with their perception of the me
aning of these truths, these needed
passages will remain uninterpreted, or misinterpret
ed.
14. Such truths man is not equipped to understand,
much less to set forth to the
understanding of women, for, as the very learned Ca
non Payne-Smith has said: "Men
never do understand anything [he refers to Bible tr
anslation] unless already in their
minds they have some kindred ideas.”
(12)

How can translations be as good as possible when only men did the work? It is a known fact that men and women look at things in entirely different ways at times. I did not state for the sake of this discussion, they were dishonest - you have added that yourself.

And women are raised to go to places that are foreign to men.

Please be specific regarding which texts you disagree over regarding Bushell's interpretation.

http://godswordtowomen.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/gods_word_to_women.pdf

Jessie Penn-Lewis is discussing the interpretation of Dr K Bushnell, a past Hebrew and Greek scholar, not her own as she was not a scholar as far as I am aware.

"HEADSHIP

Again we find the marginal reference Gen. 3:16 attached to the words in 1 Cor. 11:3, "the head of the woman is the man.'' But we must not forget that "at Corinth the church used the Septuagint Greek version and would read Gen. 3:16 as 'Thou art turning to thy husband, and he 'will' rule over thee.' ''so it would not convey to the Christians at Corinth what it does in our day." Now had we always read Gen 3:16, "writes Dr. Bushnell," 'he will rule over thee' instead of 'he shall rule over thee' and known that the verb is a simple future (as all ancient versions testify), ignorant, careless, or dishonest interpreters centuries ago would not have thought to show that this rule was God-ordained...

We question, then, the correctness of placing Gen. 3:16 against the words 'of a wife the husband is the head,' as interpreting it to mean, 'of the wife the husband is the ruler.'

But what is the New Testament meaning of the "headship" of the husband? (Not, let us notice, of "man" over woman in general, as the use of the word aner (husband) in 1 Cor. 11:3-14, makes clear.) Dr. Bushnell devotes an entire lesson to showing the use of the word "head" in the Old Testament, but we can look only briefly at her clear explanation of the word in the New Testament as interpreted for the Christian - and only the Christian - by the analogy of Christ as the Head of the Church. She asks in what sense Christ is described as "head" to His Church. Then he points out that Col. 2:19 describes it most fully. He is "the head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.'' Neither here nor in Eph. 4:15 is Christ's government referred to but His headship as the support, nourishment and builder of the Body. In Eph. 1:22, His headship as a "rule'' is clear, but this is over principalities and powers (see Eph. 1:21, 22), which are placed under his feet. But we are never told that this is the place for His Church! God gave Him to be "head over all things to the church which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.'' The place of the Church is then shown as ''raised up with him," and made to "sit with him,'' to share in his rule over the ''all things" placed under His feet (Eph. 2:6).

It was true in those days, says Dr. Bushnell, that the husband was ahead of his wife, but this made it all the more obligatory upon him that he should also be a " head" after the pattern of Christ, to support and lift up his wife to his own level. The words of Eph. 5:33 concerning this obligation are very beautiful in the original. They read, " Let every one of you in particular, so love his wife even as himself, in order that [expressed in Greek by a single Greek word denoting design] the wife may reverence [or revere] her husband. "This is the key to "headship." The true ''headship" is won by self-sacrificing love, even as Christ won His Church - not by rule and domination - but by laying down His life for her. Reverence is gained by love; it can never be demanded as a right, nor created in the one who is to give it in any other way than by being "ahead" in manifesting the character of Christ. Therefore in the Church of Christ "even as Christ" (Eph. 5:23) is the meaning of the headship described by the Apostle Paul-a headship which most truly shows forth the divine pattern of Christ and His Church."

Here we have an example of 'headship' from the OT and explained in God's Word To Women which shows that it is the one who is in obedience to God who is right.

"150. In Genesis 21:11 we are told that it was " very grievous" to Abraham to do what Sarah demanded. Did the Lord remind her that she must rather obey him? No; He told
Abraham that he must obey Sarah. The authority was
vested, not in a "sex," but in the one who took the right moral view on the question of polygamy. And so it always will be; God is with the right; not the sex. Then recall the case of Abigail (1 Samuel 25.) She knew her husband was a foolish and worthless man, and frankly said so. She did not 61 even consult him when she took "two hundred loaves and two bottles of wine, five sheep ready dressed, five measures of parched corn, a hundred clusters of grapes, and two hundred cakes of figs," and gave them to David, knowing full well that her husband had just refused to give David anything. Under ordinary conditions, had she had a worthy husband, she would not have done this. Nabal did not measure up to the occasion, and his masculinity counted for nothing, as to authority over a wife wiser than himself. The whole Bible story goes to show that Abigail did the right and prudent thing in going against what she well knew was her husband's will, to do what she could not have done with his knowledge. She showed moral courage. She averted a dire calamity. David praised her for it, and Scripture shows its approval'””for, "It came to pass that about ten days after, the Lord smote Nabal that he died."

God does not enforce wisdom where there are preconceived ideas brought to the translation table.

I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, so must depend on others, like many of us, but what I have been reading of Dr Bushnell's extensive understanding of the Biblical languages and her life long study on this issue, backed up by renowned scholars of her day, and confirmed to me in my spirit, there is no way anyone can convince me that the errors she speaks about have not been made and women in the church have not been prejudiced against and abused, denying them their God given roles as preachers and teachers. But I am willing to look at the verses in question if I am not subject to insult and condescension.

Dr Bushnell has got me deep in Bible study at the moment and she goes through each verse thoroughly with a fine tooth comb, comparing her understanding with noted theologians using her extensive knowledge of Hebrew history and their religious texts so that everything can be put in context. This was her life's work and it is astonishing. Her motivation was from her work in Asian countries where British and American soldiers were supplied by the authorities with young girls to satisfy their lust. She was told that the Chinese Bible had been deliberately altered to denigrate women and became interested as to whether our versions were also corrupted. Any man who is concerned for the truth should read her. It is not my emotions that are being influenced, hardly so after being a believer for 40 years and having a walk involving a great deal of sufferings. It is my spirit which confirms what she says although I might not agree with everything.

What is sad is how bad theology has become a platform for spiritual abuse and keeping girls from furthering their lives in Christ because their only role in life is to wait for a husband.

I know so many that won't let their daughters go to college and that they must stay home and serve their father until they are married. Of course, college is not the point, the point is that as adults, they are not free to follow their convictions and their desires born out of their relationship with God.

I see in these families how the boys are treated much more differently than the girls. Almost as if the boys are of a "privileged" class.

These mindsets are not from Christ but most probably oral law and traditions adopted from the OT and passed down through the generations of various Christian sects.

This kind of erroneous teaching makes women completely vulnerable to abuse of all kinds in Christendom.

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

In modern translations, Junia (feminine) has been changed to Junias. I wonder why?

Junia is a common name in antiquity, attested to in many documents beyond the biblical texts for women throughout the Roman world, there are no examples of the masculine form of the name, Junias, anywhere. Early biblical commentators such as Origen, John Chyrsostom, Jerome and Abelard make reference to Junia, Chyrsostom making the remark that it was a significant thing that Paul recognised her as an apostle.

http://www.amazon.com/Junia-Apostle-Eldon-Jay-Epp/dp/B002G9U22Y/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391623735&sr=1-2&keywords=junia

The problem is that man does not "control the ship", Jesus does.

And precisely because He does control the ship, He will use men or women as He desires, despite the protestations of men.

And what of women who evangelize and lead house churches in persecuted nations. Often times husbands will be imprisoned or martyred. There are no nature brothers to lead the house church. So the pastor,s wife or widow leads.

Bearmaster.

We have been conditioned by religion to get our eyes on the vessel and to disregard what may be in the vessel.

This works both ways: Many will listen to men and respect their voice, though they do not have the Holy Spirit.

the same people have been conditioned to not be receptive to a woman even before they speak (or post).

1Co 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

When we close ourselves off to an exhortation from a member of the Body, we could be closing ourselves off to His voice.

Over 50% of the full-time gospel workers in Iran and China are women. 100 million souls are being added to the Church.

We in the West do not baptize or win one soul to the Lord. God is looking for workers men are you praying are you seeking the Lord. Are you witnessing.

Our sin is great in the West we are not doing the work of the Gospel and not seeing the Church expand. We would rather play games with theology and technological toys.

Of course I see in Scripture that men should be leaders in the Church. But men are not doing the work so God is using women. Praise God for this.

Amen, Greg!

Diane, I read the content of posts and look for God's voice in them. Your posts have often spoken to me and that's "weight". Please don't stop speaking what the Lord shows you. The church is robbed by bad theology that muffles it's members.

I'm sure there are people right here on SI that hold to some of this bad theology and have been quite surprised by some of your posts and undoubtedly they probably thought you got your content from a man. ;-)

That just shows that they don't give the Holy Spirit any credit for speaking to females and maybe even dwelling in them, I dare say.

It's not the vessel, people! "Who" is inhabiting the vessel?

2Co_4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

God has made it possible that anyone (male or female) who abandons them self to Him in devotion and obedience, will bring much fruit (He is the fruit) through their life.

When we are shutting down our brother or sister, we are preventing the Lord, quenching the Spirit.

Is there something about a woman, physiologically that prevents the Lord from being great and mighty in them? From doing great exploits? From teaching others what Christ has taught them. Are they not "New Creations", also?

True, that is an onerous, uncharitable title.

Quote:

"Over 50% of the full-time gospel workers in Iran and China are women. 100 million souls are being added to the Church.

We in the West do not baptize or win one soul to the Lord. God is looking for workers, men who are praying. Are you seeking the Lord? Are you witnessing?

Our sin is great in the West we are not doing the work of the Gospel and not seeing the Church expand. We would rather play games with theology and technological toys.

Of course I see in Scripture that men should be leaders in the Church. But men are not doing the work so God is using women. Praise God for this." (Greg Gordon) //END QUOTE//

May these simple words from brother Greg, and the many prophets that are still alive and the others who have gone to be with the Lord, bring us brothers to our knees in humble, broken and contriteness of spirit desperation before the judge who is standing at the door of the churches heart in the West. Let us not get up until God changes us men into another man (i.e., Christ): "Then the Spirit of the LORD will rush upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man" (1 Sam 10:6). This was written in the O.T. and now we have all the divine promises leading to life (zoe life) and godliness. We have the "promise of the Father" and should be doing greater works because Jesus is at the right hand of the Father. We are to walk in the same manner as Jesus walked: "And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

The meek will inherit the earth. Where is the lowliness, gentleness, tenderhearted, bowels of compassion, charity, forgiveness, long-suffering, patience, mercy, self-control, humility, considering others better than ourselves, kindness, being angry, but not sinning, child-likeness, bond-slaves, ambassadors, martyrs both physical and dying to self, etc?

We are to be one with the Father and Son and we are to be one with one another. We are to be known as saints, holy, pure, upright, a light in a dark world, the Christ on the earth.

We were bought with the price of precious blood and we are not our own. "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (Rom. 12:1-2).

by ginnyrose on 2014/2/5 19:18:51

Didn't think I would read this thread because to me it is wearisome. But I did.

I have one question, what would happen if people concentrated more in serving people, being a servant to those in authority? Serving those who need help, be it spiritual, physical; and not worry about being the leader. Just help those who need help..

No one should ever be "worried" about being the leader." The Leader is only Jesus Christ and we are all servants. He is the Chief Servant.

Luke 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Luke 22:27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

I love Jackie Pullinger and just wanted to comment that no man "runs the church". We all submit to Jesus Christ in each other, and He is the one "running" the Church.

I think our problem has been that men have edged out the Lord and taken over and become the "leaders" instead of servants and have conditioned everyone to SUBMIT TO THEM.

Over 50% of the full-time gospel workers in Iran and China are women. 100 million souls are being added to the Church.

We in the West do not baptize or win one soul to the Lord. God is looking for workers men are you praying are you seeking the Lord. Are you witnessing.

Our sin is great in the West we are not doing the work of the Gospel and not seeing the Church expand. We would rather play games with theology and technological toys.

Of course I see in Scripture that men should be leaders in the Church. But men are not doing the work so God is using women. Praise God for this.

I posted in the above tenor because I believe it speaks of a spiritual reality that we are missing. We can be right scripturally about more men teachers etc but if we are not doing the work of the Gospel then why could God not raise up sisters to do it?

I have personally noticed when God raises up sisters to do the work of the Gospel they are always submissive to true brothers who have the anointing of the Lord. They are simply filling a gap left by disobedient idle men who are not doing the work but just arguing over theology and words.

I personally do agree that men are to be Elders and in assembly meetings men are to lead and guide the meetings. Women "can" prophesy (1 Cor 14) but only as there are godly men who are there who are in authority. Also many women do not have the gift of prophesy so they should remain silent in the assembly meeting.

The doctrine of headcovering and submission is in the Bible. Women have a beautiful place in God's economy. But let us not judge those sisters who are used of the Lord when men have not fulfilled their roles.

It's no wonder that many Christian churches look for "great" leaders, because the gospel message that they preach and receive does not foster sonship (sonship is for men and women). Their message and ministry fosters dependency on men. And because the church is filled with infants, they naturally need a strong leader to hold up the tent and feed them milk. And this is where the "Clergy-Laity System” comes into being.

I am not trying to say that the church should only consist of strong Christians. Every expression of the Church has stronger and weaker brethren. But, Christendom has conditioned us to think that the spiritual responsibilities and functions of the church are best carried out by the clergy or "full-time" worker.

Today, the "services" of the church have been made into programs handed down from the Pastor’s Office. As long as the "Clergy” is in place, and the church is known for their preachers (in some cases the church's name is in the leaders name) true servanthood, mutual submission, and the ministry of Christ through ALL the members, will be elusive.

Historically, this has been a system that you cannot change. Even God, cannot change it. His remedy: Come out from among them...

ADisciple

Referring to the treatise by Dr. Bushnell, Jesse Penn-Lewis quotes her as follows: "For instance, she says that she cannot find the place "where the Bible says that Eve was expelled from Eden." ''Adam was thrust out with a flaming sword between him and the tree of life, lest he put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" (Gen. 3:22). But since Eve was ''living spiritually, there was no such need to cut her off from the tree! "He drove out the man."

...And I am supposed to take this seriously? Thanks, but no thanks. Unless someone can explain to me how Adam had any further contact with his wife with her on the inside of the Garden, and he outside, with a flaming sword between them.

Is this because it is a woman saying so?

She reaches this conclusion because of the different ways that Adam and Eve responded to God when He found that they had eaten of the tree. Eve, admitted she had eaten but said that Satan had deceived her. That was the truth. She pointed her finger at him, and he heard it, causing the enmity which has continued to this day, towards women which God has allowed for His own purposes. She took a great risk by blaming him. Eve like many women, tend to trust the person speaking to them, not imagining evil, whereas men are often much more suspicious, knowing their own capacity to deceive. Adam had not been there to protect her.

Adam however, whilst admitting it too, pointed the finger at God "The woman you gave to me". How Satan must have loved to hear that. Adam was joining in with his own rebellion. Satan who had managed to sneak into the garden in the first place when it was Adam who was supposed to be guarding the entrance.

So it was only Adam who rebelled and was cast out. In fact that is what scripture says - Adam was cast out. It does not say that Even was, she had not rebelled, but she stayed with her husband obviously as they went on to have children. God however had said that she would 'turn towards him'. This is the true meaning of the Hebrew word which has been mistranslated as 'desire for' with it's sexual connotations. This is what she did, she turned from God towards her husband and because of that he then ruled over her. This was not God's will for her to be ruled over by the man but this has been the result throughout history that men have ruled over women. The same spirit that makes men want to have pre-eminance over women, made Adam want to have it regarding himself in Eden, to be like God himself and not be ruled over by Him. Women by nature take on the subservient role. The ones who don't have been damaged and no longer trust men.

When a man is saved however, and finds that there is no difference between he and the woman in Christ, he will no longer rule but serve as Christ serves the church sacrificing Himself for it. Well this is what it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, many still continue with the misogynistic attitudes they held before. Very few like our dear Wayne, support the feminist cause which is a very brave thing considering the opposition.

I find it interesting that God says that women will be saved through childbirth, the pains of which by the way are due to Satan's enmity towards all women and especially as they are due to bring forth a child which is how the Saviour came into the world. Bushnell remarks that 'there is a scent of Eden on all mothers and their newborn children'. Perhaps that means that at this special time, there is a visitation and blessing from God on the scene. I think so.

I am very pleased that at least someone read the link so thanks. I am sure that I will find things I don't agree with but I don't expect to agree with everything anyone says. I have so much enlightenment from this woman however, and have gained a measure of healing from reading her studies, with regards to the misuse and harm that has been done to me by the men in my life, including father and one uncle. It has lifted me up a great deal from the shame and self blame I have suffered. And no, I do not hate men. There are some like Wayne around and the others I pity, being under Satan's spell.

Where are the Christian men in all of this, who know exactly the extent of the problem (that is why men are so protective of their daughters)? We have had moves against slavery, and racial abuse but still women are treated as second class citizens and even still blamed for 'Eve's sin'. The mistranslation of Paul in 1 Corinthians where he is quoting the Judaisers, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Krautfrau,

Adam was most definitely the blameshifter, just like his new father, Satan. He was not reflecting the image of His heavenly Father, anymore. It is also clear that Eve did tell the truth. She was deceived and Adam did nothing, but who does God call? He called Adam.

What could be taking place in Adam's heart at this time.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

You know Adam remembered God's command to Him, but he is foolishly thinking that maybe things will go better with him if he pushes the blame "on the woman you gave me".

Remember, how lonely Adam was. He named all the animals but there "was not found an helpmeet for him?"

And then when God did make an helpmeet for him, he exclaims the following:

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Adam is obviously delighted especially since she is intimately a part of him.

A short time later, he has disdain for her. Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Instead of owning up to his own sin he attacks Eve. I wonder if the Lord allowed Adam to continue in that vein, if Adam would have allowed Eve to be destroyed if only he could live.

Jesus came to show us how to lay down our lives for one another. Something that Adam was incapable of.

Today, we still have many Adams (fleshly men) in the church blameshifting, and using their position and bad theology to keep other "sons of God" down. There are gender wars in the world, but there should be no gender wars in the Church where there is neither male nor female. This is another indication of the worldly, fleshly church that has always paralleled the True Church from Genesis to Revelation.

In a man-made system, people compete for authority and use it to "lord over others" and control them.

The need to lord over others has it's basis in fear.

We should all be reminded how easily it is for men to be deceived, too. And we should not use scriptures to quench the Spirit and control others. Adam's deception was that he thought he could shift the blame to Eve and get away with it. Eve was truthful to the Lord. The Church has hung this mantra regarding deception about the neck of Christian women for a long time and it is usually to control them.

When Paul wrote this, he was not speaking to a group of women he was speaking to the Church.

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Competitiveness and fear in the Worldly Church just like competitiveness in the world, creates gender wars.

Gender wars do not exist "in Christ."

Observe the men who flock to this site to hear and read sermons to uncover more riches (revelation) of God's word. God gives revelation to women, too. I commend SI for putting up a few women, but we need to hear from more of God's "sons".

Basilea Schlink (52)
Catherine Booth (62)
Corrie Ten Boom (1) (need more of her writings)
Elisabeth Elliot (22)
Elizabeth Ashbridge (1)
Faith Cook (2)
Gladys Alward (1) (need more of her writings)
Harriet N. Cook (32)
Jill Briscoe (12)
Margaret Fell (7)
Mary Warburton Booth (1)
Nancy Leigh DeMoss (6)
Sarah Cheevers (1)
Alice Hayes (1)
Jessie Penn Lewis (39)
Linda Lowry (1)
Mary Wilder Tileston (365)
Melody Green (2)
Anne Ortlund (44)
Hannah More (1)
Kim Riddlebarger (2)
Mother Julian of Norwich (1)
Sarah Foulkes Moore (1)
Elizabeth Stirredge (1)
Hannah Whitall Smith (19)
Gipsey Smith (1)
Mrs. C.T. Studd (1)
Virginia Schurman (1)

And now, read this from Margaret Fell, right here on SI, if you have the courage to change. It is time to stop this foolishness, men. You are playing into the hands of the Devil, himself.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=4031

I think it would be good for you to do some real heart searching before the Lord, sister. Is it possible that you are in a contest all by yourself?

Brother ADisciple, I am not in a contest but I am going through some extensively deep work by God involving some very deep healing and this involves recognising the wound before it can be healed, feeling the anger instead of burying it though shame and it involves a lot of abuse I have had from men including an uncle who liked little girls. Would you like to deny me the healing because I am too confrontational? I thought that we were to bear one another's burdens?

It is implicit that in casting out the man, his wife was included.

Wrong, a woman has her own mind and Eve could have let Adam go.

I wasn't convinced that her conclusions were sound. A lot of speculation there. And no, I'm not saying that because I am a man.

Her 'speculations' were always backed up with scripture and or Hebrew history and culture. You just did not like the implications of what she said.

If it’s too threatening to control or dominate, we flee into passivity and even hopeless depression. Either way we fail to embrace the destiny God has marked for us ”“ and we blame those "over” us for our victimhood. I’ve often seen women who hide behind their controlling husbands as a reason for not moving on in life. It seems biblical, obedient. I’d say that this is especially a risk where a strong focus is placed on gender disparities. But rather than strengthen marriages it has led to far too many marriage breakdowns.

Diane indeed passivity is often the most destructive sin in women whereas in men it is lust but they assume that lust must be our greatest sin as well. If you read the scriptures through that lens ie that the translators thought that lust was a prominent sin in women too you will see the bias hence why I say that women should have been included in translation and interpretation.

Hi Star of God (fellow Saint),

Not that it matters, but in this life, I am a brother. :-)

No apologies necessary.

Lindi, many men unfortunately find women's gullibility something to despise, but it is due to projecting ones own motives onto others and trusting that you are being told the truth because one is truthful oneself but men are much wiser, knowing that they themselves are well practised in the art of deception which they learn very early in life in our misogynistic cultures.For example they hear that you just tell a woman you love her, and bingo she is easy to seduce. I am not blaming men totally because they are young boys at this point and therefore innocent, it is the whole culture. I think that women retain this guilability because of the vestige of innocence from Eden.

"Here and there may be some " thoughts" which might seem farfetched, but they are as legitimate an exegesis of the text as any others and do not affect any vital and fundamental New Testament doctrine. For instance, she says that she cannot find the place "where the Bible says that Eve was expelled from Eden." ''Adam was thrust out with a flaming sword between him and the tree of life, lest he put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" (Gen. 3:22). But since Eve was ''living spiritually, there was no such need to cut her off from the tree! " He drove out the man." Dr. Bushnell continues, "I choose to believe that something of the odours of Eden have enveloped Motherhood ever since creation." If deep hidden instinct is any evidence of an intuitive knowledge of some facts of life as they exist in the sight of God, Dr. Bushnell's faith is shared by men and women alike, many of whom own that there is no more beautiful reminder of Eden with its odours than the picture of a young mother with her newborn child. Dr. Bushnell suggests, too, that if Eve had heeded God's warning that she was "turning'' to Adam and what the consequences would be, not yielding to this "turning," Adam might have been saved from the effects of his fall.” Jessie Penn-Lewis commenting on Dr Bushnell’s book "God’s Word to Women”.

No doubt we can say whatsoever we please on any subject if we are sufficiently motivated. On the other hand the supposed legitimate exegesis which is spoken of here in the above quotation, has one singular and profound reality about it. It makes of Eve a woman who did not need the death of Christ for her salvation because she had no sin. This must be true because she was "living spiritually” and so God retained her access to the tree of life. That is it and that is its delusional meaning. If not then it is a meaning which lends itself to a claim that women, despite sin, are in tune with God in a way that is not possible for men. Both assertions would be complete nonsense if they were not made in any other context than that of the offence borne against women by men since the fall, expressed and evidenced by the conduct of men. Dr Bushnell, as quoted by Penn-Lewis, originally based her understanding on the offence which came out of her experiences in Kiukiang, China as a medical missionary between 1879-83.
The following comments and quotations are taken from her own words written in 1934/5 in Shanghai, China.

"On my way to China, in 1879, on shipboard, I recall that I confidently asserted that it was neither desirable nor necessary for women to preach the Gospel; it was unbecoming-and this though I had gone against the same prejudices to study medicine, in those old-fashioned days. But I had only been in China a few months when my opinion began to undergo change, as to woman’s part in the Gospel.
Finding a sex-biassed translation in the Chinese translation of the Bible, I one day asked a male missionary about it. He said that undoubtedly it was so rendered because of pagan prejudice against the ministry of women. I was shocked. It had never before entered my mind that such a thing could be. This led to my tracing other signs, both in the Chinese and the English Bible, that pointed in the same direction, when I consulted my Greek Testament. Could it be possible that men allowed prejudice to colour Scripture translation?

My interest grew; I devoted myself to more careful and critical study of the Greek New Testament, and later, of the Greek Old Testament; and I added the study of Hebrew for comparison in the Old Testament. But my knowledge of Hebrew is more limited than of Greek”

http://godswordtowomen.org/bushnell_brief_sketch.pdf

One could speak of Dr Lily Hsu who trained as a medical doctor in Shanghai between 1949-1955. She completed her undergraduate medical training just one year before she testified against Watchman Nee at his trial in 1956. In 2011, Dr Hsu published a book in Chinese which accuses Nee of Rape as well as sleeping with prostitutes across a period of nearly 30 years (amongst many other things) This covers the whole period of Nee’s ministry. Dr Hsu was a member of the Shanghai Christian Assembly from 1947-1957.

Sophia Caroline Bushnell who used the pen name of Katherine Bushnell was herself offended with the way in which some men abuse women, especially with regard to sexual exploitation in the area of prostitution. Bushnell was particularly offended by the presence of girls, (sometimes as young as seven years) in circumstances where they had been sold into slavery, and were being kept in appalling circumstances. In one instance Bushnell arranged for a local Doctor who was in authority, to examine some of these children to find the proof that they were being used as sexual slaves. In that instance the children examined were found to be virgins. Bushnell goes on to say that even if they had been found to have been violated, the examiner himself would have taken an indifferent view anyway. When we are offended with the activities of sinful and fallen men it is easy to confuse that offence with the true meaning of the gospel itself. If we then go on to prove that men have distorted and deliberately translated Scriptures to facilitate the abuse of women we will end up re-writing the Scriptures themselves according to our offence and not according to revelation. This is what Dr Bushnell did by her own admission.

http://godswordtowomen.org/bushnell_brief_sketch.pdf

This is what Dr Hsu did in1956 at Watchman Nee’s trial. She hated him with such a passion that she even informed on him and helped to provide a basis for destroying him.

The common link between Dr Bushnell and Dr Hsu is Shanghai 1934, and their hatred of the sins of men against women. Dr Bushnell was a medical missionary in Shanghai with the Woman's Mission Board of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Dr Bushnell specialised in the same subject area of medicine as did Dr Hsu. Both Dr Bushnell, and Dr Hsu took there offence from the activities of men in relationship to prostitution and the unequal relationship between men and women in society, especially the issue of authority and its effect on women. Dr Bushnell began with a biblical position based on her upbringing in the USA, Dr Hsu literally idolised Watchman Nee to the point of even claiming that he became her ‘god’ and then went on to denounce him when she became convinced (by evidence derived from the Communist Party apparatus) that Nee had sinned in the area of sexual immorality against women. She even praises God that He [God] raised up the accusation trials (in which she voluntarily participated) which followed the Communist Takeover of China in 1949 to ‘purify’ the church. To Dr Hsu this was a removal of the ‘golden calf’ of Nee from her life and the basis for the restoration of God on the throne of her heart. It apparently took twenty-two years for this effect to work itself out in her life. Shortly after which (1981) she moved to the USA to practise medicine.

Play pretty with words if we must, but be advised that the end of it will be more terrible than you can even begin to comprehend. If the understanding of authority in the churches is to be based on offence and a wrecking of the Scriptures, then the end will be spiritual deception surpassing any other day. That is what is happening in any regard and it found its purchase in the mid 1900s, with women such as Dr Bushnell. Just to finish for the sake of the one who provoked this enquiry, Dr Bushnell wrote the book "God’s Word to Women” between 1908 and 1921. It was essentially the product of a correspondence course. How those correspondence courses can really help to shape things into a recognised doctrine which will be acceptable to others. It was began more than thirty years after the offence itself. Dr Hsu has written her book nearly sixty years after the offence which stumbled her.

Its probably best to give the last word to Dr Bushnell:

"One day when we were holding meetings at Chester, England, we received a call from Mrs. Butler to come to London as soon as we could spare a day””she had a message from God for us, as to our future plans””and we went.

Since her message for Mrs. Andrew does not relate to the present line of thought, I will pass it by. But she said to me something like this: "The time has come for you to stop these purity addresses as you have been giving them; they are wearing out your nerves, but the public will keep you on them forever. Turn away from the painful details of your Oriental investigation, and refuse to talk of them. Hold some Christian meetings of a general sort. You are well equipped for such work by your Bible studies. Do not think of this change of plan as an abandonment of purity work; your record in that line will always carry its influence. But now turn your attention in a different direction.”

I am unable to describe with what joy I welcomed this advice. Then I opened my heart freely to Mrs. Butler, telling her how I longed to give Bible instruction on the lines of purity, and to show the importance of the freedom of women for the purification of society; and how I had been, all along, preparing for such activity. She entered most heartily into the plan, and after long discussion and prayer over the matter, we found we three, Mrs. Butler, Mrs. Andrew and myself were fully agreed that the social evil would never be got rid of so long as the subordination of woman to man was taught within the body of Christians. (Let me explain here, that "subordination” and "subjection” as a Christian duty were two different thoughts, in the mind of both Paul and Peter, as stands proved by the fact that both of these apostles enjoin "subjection” as a mutual duty of all Christians to each other””Ephesians 5:21; 1 Pet 5:5)”.

"And furthermore, since woman will always be the sex that bears and nurses the children, there is no emancipation of her sex from the dominion of the masculine sex, except her emancipation through Jesus Christ, Who softens her husband’s heart and causes him to recognize that in freeing her he but frees himself and his sons after him from the dominion of sin.”

Therein lies the heresy. It is only when women are freed from all dominion of men, that men will be freed from the dominion of sin. It is heresy regardless as to the offence which gave rise to it. Men are not freed from their sin, by giving women the same precise standing in the world and the church. That was however what Dr Bushnell fully intended to say. It is also where a new doctrine is following on and some here have embraced it, and others have given way to it by reason of natural wisdom and cannot see the devise of Satan in it. It is complete foolishness to press natural wisdom and psychology and to claim this is a better understanding than the plain revelation of Scripture.

Eve required salvation like all mankind, as she turned away from God to be with her husband. But she was not like her rebellious husband in joining the ranks of Satan to the extent that he had. Again, her great sin was passivity.

Again, on the difference between men and women, men of the world are looking for a 'good woman' who will 'save them' from themselves. I ask the moderation team not to lock this thread as some illuminating thoughts are coming up and the idea of a feminist uprising is ludicrous. What is wrong with the truth? Where are the counterarguments? What is too scary about the discussion?

Thank you brother, your words are healing. I don't class all men the same as l said before regarding Wayne.

I agree. The discussion is going well, great insights are being brought out.

Please don't shut down the discussion.

Eve required salvation like all mankind, as she turned away from God to be with her husband. But she was not like her rebellious husband in joining the ranks of Satan to the extent that he had. Again, her great sin was passivity. Krautfrau

May I ask how you know that this is true Krautfrau? How do you know that Eve's sin was following her husband? The only possibility of claiming this has come to you from the writing of Catherine Bushnell. It was Dr Bushnell who translated portions of the bible, which she believed were relevant to women and published it as a claim to be publishing the word of God. It is the very title of the book.

"Bushnell’s work with prostitutes convinced her that the "feminine” passivity held up as a Christian virtue for Victorian women, actually left them vulnerable and ill equipped to protect themselves. True virtue, Bushnell insisted, required strength and courage from women as well as men. "When an expositor and preacher of the Gospel wanders out of his path of duty ‘to preach Christ’ as woman’s one example of conduct, and instead preaches ‘womanliness,’ he sets up an idol of his own creation for women to worship,” she wrote. Professor Kristin Kobes Du Mez

When Dr Hsu wrote her book regarding Watchman Nee in 2011 (Chinese) 2013 (English) she uses this precise form of language. It is a theology which claims that Eve did not fall when she was deceived and that she was still able to remain in the garden and if she so chose to eat of the Tree of Life and in that would have lived forever. It goes on to claim that due to some innate passivity on Eve's part she instead elected to follow Adam from the garden and in so doing she fell from grace.

Such a view of the fall of Adam and Eve is profoundly at odds with the Scriptures. Dr Bushnell had her own unique position in this regard. The one thing which can be said of this is that today her book has become more popular than it was in 1921 when she first published it.

"Bushnell’s work is undergoing a contemporary renaissance, according to Kobes Du Mez. "Bushnell has been sort of handed down from woman to woman. Now it’s gone global," she said. "Women in Africa, Pakistan and India are reading her work. It has found a new audience among women and men who hold conservative views of biblical authority but are searching for more liberating views on women’s roles in church and society."

The professor has made the only meaningful study of Dr Bushnell from the standpoint of historical context. You should read her publication regarding her findings. At least they have some factual reality.

As far as the meaning of saying that Eve did not sin, when she ate of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, it is a complete lie. Eve did not fall from grace by following her husband. Adam fell from grace by eating the fruit in disobedience to God's commandment. The mechanism was his ear, and the presentation was his wife's offer to eat, verbal and visual. Yet it is the words which God draws attention to. God Himself has said so. Read the Scriptures. The account we have is written from the position of God and not from the position of Adam or Eve. It is God who tells us that Eve said to the serpent that she knew she was commanded not to eat of the fruit. It is therefore inexcusable to insist that when she ate she was not being disobedient. Regardless as to whether she was deceived or not (which she was of course) her disobedience remains. The singular difference lies in who God Himself holds accountable, not who sinned.

Given the rise of interest in this doctrine it cannot be a trivial matter to see it presented, as you yourself have now done, and not say plainly that it is heresy. Even though Professor Du Mez applauds Dr Bushnell in many regards, she clearly distances herself from this teaching. In a similar way Jessie Penn-Lewis attempted the same exercise when she asserts that this statement is exegetically acceptable. Which means it is acceptable for discussion, but not for faith.

Now we have a number asking for this thread not to be locked because it is a good discussion. In my experience unless good discussions are clearly set in the context of discussing heresy then it is simply vanity and will lead to deception. It is one thing to say, "look at this". It is another thing to say, "here it is". Dr Bushnell presented this heresy as the Word of God to Women. She did not present it as a thing to be tested. Now it is becoming the Word of God to men and women across several continents. Do you really understand it's meaning? Or are you simply pressing it's meaning and excusing it because of the need for God to heal the deep wounds? If I took such an attitude then I would have to declare myself an expert on homosexuality because I was sexually abused by a man when I was a child. I was and I am no expert. Neither is a woman an expert on passivity or suffering because men have caused them suffering. Suffering in this world has never been the preserve or the dominion of women alone. Men, women and children suffer everywhere and have dome from the beginning. Nor is such a presentation the gospel. What it is, is heresy and false teaching which has a purpose of Satan.

Havok20x & Armkelly I do agree with you that there is a departure from scripture. In my earlier post I did ask why the book by Dr Bushnell seemed to have more authority than scripture. Again interestingly correct me if I am wrong Dr Bushnell is a woman?? It appears that she had trouble accepting the authority of scripture so then found ways to teach otherwise so as to support women on the pulpit. The question is how come her book holds more weight to the modern day church and scriptures which clearly state that a woman should not teach in church are sidelined and ignored lindi1208

Dr Bushnell was a woman and she remained unmarried for her whole life. She was no doubt a remarkable women in many regards. Her work in China, and India especially deserve recognition. She was compassionate and sincere. It has to be said that she also wrote in the context of Victorian society and especially in terms of China and Indian brutality and superstition towards women in general.

Although Sophia Caroline Bushnell sought to address the social injustices, (which in her day were truly appalling), she wasn't especially seeking to usurp the order of the church. Her whole life was spent seeking to empower women to refuse to accept the abuses of men. When Jessie Penn-Lewis took note of her publication's between 1908 and 1919, and especially her argument as to how the Scriptures had been misapplied and translated, both in China and in the western world, she used the same grammatical argument herself. This argument changes the very meaning of the Genesis account and thus Bushnell was able to claim that she had found a plausible basis for re-writing portions of the Scripture which ought to help both men and women to treat one another better. She was in essence really seeking to eradicate from societies, the abuse of women by men. She believed that this would only be possible to those who took the name of Christ, and so she focussed her literally skills in the direction of the church. She was however very vociferous in both investigating and challenging political issues and even military issues where women were the subject of men in abusive relationships. This predominately took the form of challenging white slavery in the USA, the use of prostitutes by British and Canadian soldiers in India, and the prostitution of girls and women in China. But her real conviction was that only the church could really make the difference.

None of this however excuses heresy.

As to why she is now becoming a source of interest to the present churches across the world, that has to do with the fact that the church itself has embraced liberalism to such an extent that even conservative churches are under pressure to address their perceived sense of failure in advocating roles for women beyond the domicile environment. These churches cannot possibly embrace a radical feminist charter which includes lesbianism, abortion and open rebellion, so Dr Bushnell offer a serious alternative to explain the condition of the relationship between men and women, without condemning men out of hand or advocating insurrection. Women like Dr Bushnell are rare because she does not speak evilly of men as a necessary mantra. She simply speaks of the governance of men and its causes. The chief cause being evidenced by the fact that Eve had not fallen into sin and death when Adam fell, but in fact fell out of God's grace by following Adam physically, out of the garden, in order to be with him. This is explained by a claim to passivity brought about by Adam himself.

This is what is meant by Krautfrau's use of the term "vestige of innocence".

I am going to have to reply more fully tomorrow, but l want to make it clear that Dr Bushnell and myself say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the scriptures in their original languages. They are God's word to man and cannot be tampered with. However, there is a very great problem here, in that woman was created to help man in everything he does, but she has been excluded from the very important job of translating scripture.

Instead of it being man plus woman, he turned away from woman towards man, man working with man instead, what is unseemly and against God's order, in all of the work involved with church. Hopefully this last bastion is about to crumble.

When Adam was created, God said it was very good, then we hear that things changed and it was not good so he needed a woman to help him. He was not managing without woman.

There is nothing heretical in what Dr Bushnell proposed. Eve sinned probably eating the fruit but seems to perhaps have repented and certainly did not show the rebellion seen in Adam and whatever Andrew says, scripture does not say that she was cast out of Eden so he is using conjecture just as much.

Can I make a request at this point please? The word heresy is being bandied about as usual here, when someone says something that others don't agree with. It is a serious charge and the onus is on the accusers to say what the heresy is, thanks.

Gullibility is a weakness that endangers the Body.

I agree Diane. With the mind of Christ a woman has no excuse for it, it should be rather a sin of the unchurched but unfortunately, it does continue in some more than others as do the sins that men are more prone to like sexual sins. And you are correct that ALL of God's children need to grow in grace and a more complete knowledge of scripture in its original language can only aid that.

According to that reasoning, the woman never came to know good and evil either. For scripture does not say that she became "as one of Us, to know good and evil." It says, "Behold, the man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3.22). The woman is not mentioned here either. So apparently the woman escaped this knowledge of good and evil, and is still in a state of innocence, in spite of having eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Yes you have a point. Perhaps a Hebrew scholar can assist in showing whether 'man' is used in some places to mean both of them. Eve apparently did receive knowledge of good and evil but her sin was not of outright rebellion, she was not aware that she was sinning at the time so she had not become as corrupted as her husband. Turning away from God to her husband would be grounds for being driven out, I am not sure I need to think on this one some more. But the point still stands that it was through one man Adam that sin came into the world. And that sin was a major one whereby he joined the ranks of God's arch enemy. Eve did not. She became his enemy instead.

1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

a-servant, It says in 1 Cor.11.5 "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

So you have Paul turning what he said on its head, first instructions for women to cover their heads when praying or prophesying and then some minutes afterwards, banning it altogether. So he both veiled AND silenced women? That does not make sense.

Also when Paul says "as also sayeth the law" he is referring to the Talmut which belongs to rabbinism that woman is subordinate to man,as there is nothing in the whole of the OT to say that a woman may not speak in public in fact there are many examples of women holding the highest position of Prophets such as Miriam, Deborah and Huldah and this is why Bushnell says that Paul is repeating what has been said to him in the letter from the Corinthians.

"1 Cor 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

This can very easily be referring to women who are learners not women who are teachers. And what of the many who have no husbands?

Supposing, during the Armenian atrocities, or the
Chinese Boxer uprising, because of some special peril to
men, to which women were not exposed, a bishop had sent the
following advice: Let male preachers of the Gospel refrain from teaching women and controlling them, and be in quietness." Could that be justly construed as an interdiction of all male preaching for all time , if once it were known that at that time special peril to men alone existed? No; the use of such an expression as "preachers of the Gospel" would lead one to infer that, when peace was restored, these men could pursue the vocation named with greater boldness. So here, once knowing that special peril for women alone existed, the use of the expression "women proclaiming godliness" would surely indicate this as their normal occupation under normal conditions.

For the record, I do not believe in women pastors or leaders. I do not believe in one man leading a church either. I think that God's way is for men and women to work together in leadership and we see this in action with Pricilla and Aquila, the leadership team where both taught. I also believe in the headship of the husband in the marriage relationship. It was Adam's role to protect Eve.

I believe that a sea of change is about to happen in the church, even bigger than the Reformation. It has been bubbling away for quite some time with the New Perspective on Paul. If anyone does not know what this is, it is regarding the understanding which has been gained, that the second temple Jews were not a works/salvation religion as originally thought (and neither are Roman Catholics). They believed in salvation by grace that is, for a person to be born into the family of God, but works were required for one to STAY in, and this totally alters Paul's words about Judaisers. The interpreters have gotten that wrong over two millenium.

I am very pleased to see an increase in women engaged in theology training. On my course, taught by Evangelical theologians of standing, there are only two men but twelve women.

It is rather obvious that past interpreters have not got it exactly right when there is so much emphasis on temptation of sexual sin which is not I repeat, a significant temptation for women. women look for love, men look for sex. It is a well known saying.

Paul predicts that scripture would be corruupted:

2 Corinthians 4:1, 2: "Seeing we have this ministry . . . we . .. have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully.” "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock”
(Acts20:29) And Peter "wrestling the words of Paul’s epistles "unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15, 16).

In Romans 16:1, the Apostle Paul says:"I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is diakonos of the church which is at Cenchrea,” referring, beyond all possibility of a doubt, to her status in the church , the A. V. translates "servant” (the R.V.margin translates "deaconess”). Bishop Lightfoot speaks of the mistranslation, "servant” in this place. He also gives strong reasons for believing that 1 Timothy 3:11 refers also to women deacons, and adds: "If the testimony borne in these two passages to a ministry of women in the Apostolic times had not been thus blotted out of our English Bibles, attention would probably have been
directed to the subject at an earlier date, and our English church would not have remained so long maimed of one of her
hands.” We suppose the Bishop’s thoughts went no further than to the thought of a needed order of "deaconesses,” when he penned these words. But they apply with greater force all the way along to woman’s full equality with man in the ministry of the Gospel,for until that point is reached, the Church will ever be maimed of one of her
hands in her struggle with the world, the flesh and
the devil.

K Bushnell.

"Ah, yes; the sinful woman is indeed down, and eagerly the crowd gathers about to stone her for her sin! But wait! What voice cares to raise itself against the mobbing of a low-lived woman? It is the merciful Son of God, and He cries, "Let him that is without sin first cast a stone at her!” Let me, then, if He be present to witness the stoning, protest that that man standing foremost in the crowd ought not to have the pleasure of casting a stone. He bought a wedding-ring for his innocent bride with harlot’s hire; but I have known a young girl very like the one standing there to work the whole night through to earn honest money with which to pay a debt to me, saying, "I wouldn’t offer a decent woman the price of shame.” Nor should that man who steps forward cast a stone at her. He carried his case through three tedious courts, in order to exhaust the scanty means of the plaintiff, and escape the necessity of supporting his child; but I saw the frail, childish mother plodding from daybreak until midnight at the sewing-machine, in order that his little one might never know a want.” Published by the NATIONAL EVANGELIST TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PROMOTION OF SOCIAL PURITY, W.C.T.U. Written by Kate C Bushnell M.D. 1888 of which body was Kate C. Bushnell an evangelical missionary with the .W.C.T.U 1888.

The above quotation from a story by Dr Bushnell was written without pretence as to its literary style because it concludes with the term "The End”. It is a story and it’s meaning is philosophical. It reminds me a little bit of the style of Friedrich Nietzsche in the so-called parable of the Mad Man. The Gay Science (1882, 1887)

This too is a story and this too is philosophy. Both of them contain real words and meanings, however! For Nietzsche the corroboration lies in the new freedom being experienced by men everywhere, (freedom from belief in God), as a result of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution published in 1859. To use his parlance, we could say that now man has unchained the sun from the earth, from whence cometh light thereafter? To use Bushnell’s parlance we could ask if Christ so stands by and directly changes the social injustices perpetrated by men on women, why then does not Christ also stand in the courts in which places these injustices are laid down? If you knew the answer to that you would know why Dr Bushnell is profoundly wrong.

It would mean Christ speaking to the judge and saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. It would result in the whole breakdown of the fabric of society and the rule of law. Yet when Jesus stood before the judge who sentenced Him to death, the Lord spoke only that which was true. "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin”. If we confuse social justice with truth the effect will be heresy in the end.

"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" -- As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one? Did he lose his way like a child? asked another? Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Emigrated? -- Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us -- for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves.”

The last know public appearance of Nietzsche tells of his compassion for a horse which was being beaten with a whip by the driver of the carriage to which it was harnessed. Nietzsche is said to have thrown his arms around the neck of the horse to save it from the cruel blows of the man.

Compassion for living creatures can be seen in atheists and believers alike. The injustice of the man beating the horse is philosophically no different to the injustice of men who beat their wives, whether literally or not. It’s meaning is the same in presentation. It is that the weaker creature is harnessed to the stronger and it is unjust. It is the women to the man and the horse to the cart, by harnessing its mouth. Dr Bushnell was a woman of her time and she expressed real social injustices and concerns. Yet her philosophy was that God did not make the woman to be harnessed to the man, which is to say that God did not make the woman a weaker vessel. According to Bushnell Eve chose the weaker part. If we take this philosophy to its conclusion we may well see that just as Nietzsche spoke concerning the mad man, acknowledging that his rebuke and warning had come too soon, so we can see that the intentions of some christian women and a few men in the late 19th century could not be received or comprehended in their day either. It took many years for the lightning to finally strike on both counts.

The meaning of "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him” is not an appeal to believe in God, it is an appeal to take the matter to its completion. "Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?” If we insist in writing philosophy to explain our beliefs then we will sow seeds which may take many years to come to fruition. When they do, will we be able to comprehend it? We will be lost in it’s meaning, and others will reap what we have sown in our haste to correct social injustices in the name of Christ. The real meaning and part which women have in Christ in the church is lost because of this confusion and Satan who deftly sowed the seeds knows well enough that its end will be as he promised to Eve and not to Adam. Read the Scripture.

I just had to be the 100th piece of "fruit"....fruity fruit on a barren tree.

(okay, now that I've claimed this spot)

WHY...with the world (literally) aflame, would this subject hold such attraction for many of you?

You all know what the Prophet Joel says at the Leading of God?...."pour out My Spirit on all flesh"?

so who am I, to TRY and stifle a Flame that has been kindled in a sister's soul, and must be spoken?....who am I?..i'm broken clay too.....

furthermore, i'd like to see ANY man try and give birth.

wouldn't happen....we THINK we're rough and tumble, but carry a life for nine months, THEN BIRTH it, then nurture it for anywhere from 18 to 40 years....that's tough.

and as well, let me bestow some hard fought nuggets of wisdom....the two smartest words out of a husband's mouth are:

"Yes dear".

You think i'm in jest?

no.

if a sister has a Word from the Holy Ghost?

wanna stand in the Way of God?....."pour out My Spirit on ALL flesh"...the Lord said.

i'm glad the original poster is GONE....many unclean spirits coursing thru the minds of people in these days....fix our thoughts on Jesus, Beautiful Savior, Messiah, Majestic.

that original poster SURE knew what he was doing, he KNEW what would get people ALL wound up.

when its a human beings AIM, to get others wound up like that?

I think its the enemy behind it all, sowing tares, or lobbing hand grenades.

its true, how many people have been killed fighting over religion?

Just for the record, we humans are neither male nor female. We are spirits. Our body, male or female, is merely our clothing for our spirit for our duration on this planet.

Amen. We are new creations. Never existed on earth before Christ. Men and women filled with the Spirit of God.

Amen. We are new creations. Never existed on earth before Christ. Men and women filled with the Spirit of God.

You may never have existed on earth before you believed but I certainly did. What is more I am the same man now in true person as I was before I believed into Christ. This determination to defy physical reality is becoming more bizarre by the hour! Do you really not understand that by saying this you are throwing away a true understanding of reality, both physical and spiritual. You did not exist before you were born of a woman (save for in the Knowledge of God) and you continue to exist after you were born of the Holy Spirit. The natural man is the soul of the man and the soul of the man is who you truly are. The man of the spirit is Christ Himself, and the soul of the man is you! When havock20x asked ArtB to provide a scripture to support his comments which you have so enthusiastically supported, it was precisely because the words lend themselves to a heresy. It is that we existed before we were born of a woman. It so happens that this is not what ArtB was seeking to say. However if we make our point and do not discern the enemy of our souls, we will quickly find that we have lent ourselves to a delusion. Taken in its intended meaning the saying simply denies physical reality. Which itself can easily become a heresy. You cannot deny physical reality. Jesus was raised bodily from the dead. He was not a spirit. He is a true physical man and a life giving Spirit. We on the other hand, as evidenced by these posts, are yet alive in our bodies and love Christ Jesus. It is not the body or else the spirit, it is both the body and the spirit. It is not in Christ, neither male or female. It is in Christ, neither male or female and Christ in us, both male and female. The issue of marriage and giving in marriage in the kingdom is not a distinction which excludes comprehending that we are become the sons and daughters of the Living God. ""And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:18, NASB95)

What do you suppose the Scripture means when it speaks:

"But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death works in us, but life in you. But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I SPOKE,” we also believe, therefore we also speak, knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you. For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace which is spreading to more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory of God. Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:7”“18, NASB95)

Is the earthen vessel become less than an earthen vessel because we have believed? Or is the thing passing away already passed away so that we have become spirits? Or is it the case when the Scriptures speaks about God pouring out His Spirit upon all flesh, (sons and daughters), that God Himself does not deny the biological reality of what He has made? The issue is not so abstract as we make it to be. And the difficulty has more to do with deception arising from failing to accept that the bigotry of men towards women is no basis for rewriting what God has said about the creature he has made, anymore than it is a matter of pressing the lie that a woman who proclaims the gospel of grace is acting in disobedience. Male and female created He them, created He man. So long as you dwell in the tabernacle of your body you will be dealt with and attested to as a biological male; both by God and men. What that means in reality of the calling of God cannot be a matter of pressing a wrong balance of understanding. It cannot be all things or no things. It must be those things which are according to God.

Unless we can move past philosophy and lay hold of spirit and truth we will forever be tossed about and have no basis for steering a true course. How will we serve Christ, male and female, in our present bodies if we cannot both remove beyond the body itself and at the same instant comprehend the reality of creation? When Paul spoke of these things he placed them into the context of the order of creation. He did not place them into the order of social injustices. Long before any injustice existed there was a male and a female. The male was created first from the red earth and the female was taken from the bone and flesh of a man. This is the reality to which Paul draws our attention. Claiming that the Scriptures have been wilfully perverted and thereby setting them straight is an argument borne out of social injustice regardless as to the grammatical contract which is used to prove it by men and women who themselves have no more reason for complaint than their own bodies.

The Scriptures never presses men to the right or the left. We are always pressed to the centre, which is straight ahead. Right or left will always lead to error and it may be error which perfectly suits the enemy of our souls. The centre will never facilitate error nor will it cause a man to stumble. But it must be a measure according to God. It cannot be a measure according to men as we seek to know the straight way.

"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.” (1 Corinthians 14:34”“40, NASB95)

Have we come to believing that when Paul wrote this instruction to the church at Corinth that he was simply speaking about that which is comprehended by the natural mind? Paul says, "if anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him understand that the things of which I write to you are the Lord's command". If a thing amounts to the Lord's command it can never be a thing to be comprehended by the natural mind. It must be something which requires obedience and not simply an understanding of words. If the thing of which Paul is speaking is in the gift of a prophet to comprehend or in the mind and obedience of the one who is spiritual, it cannot be a matter of natural wisdom. Whatever Paul is writing about it is something which is discerned or else understood in the spirit. If we ever get to making an argument which has its roots in social history then what good the prophet or the spiritual man or woman?

I am speaking of spiritual realities, amr.

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

The ONE NEW MAN never existed before Christ and COULD NOT exist before Christ. This is the NEW CREATION, neither male nor female.

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

My old man died with Christ and I reckon him dead.
Rom_6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Yes, our body is still the same, but I error-ed in assuming you knew that I was alluding to spiritual realities.

No problem, just sorry you had to spend so much time writing a long, "Don Quixote" post.

I just want to point out that you said this, not I:

What is more I am the same man now in true person as I was before I believed into Christ.

I guess you better define "true person". True person before Christ would be your old man. Isn't that who you truly were in your thoughts and character? The New Man has the mind of Christ, is a branch in the Tree. The true person of the old man, was a branch in Satan, the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". The "root" of your "true person" was different. Do you not have a new root? I never heard of the biblical term, "True Person". When I think of "true person", before Christ, I think of a denier and hater of God, a selfish, self-centered, person.

Eph 2:2-3 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

We had a different spirit working in us and making our "true person" a child of the Devil.

This determination to defy physical reality is becoming more bizarre by the hour!

I guess you better define "true person". True person before Christ would be your old man. Isn't that who you truly were in your thoughts and character? The New Man has the mind of Christ, is a branch in the Tree. The true person of the old man, was a branch in Satan, the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". The "root" of your "true person" was different. Do you not have a new root? I never heard of the biblical term, "True Person". When I think of "true person", before Christ, I think of a denier and hater of God, a selfish, self-centred, person.

The following, is quoted from another place but they are my words. It will give the meaning of the saying, "my true person".

A Difference of Meaning

"In Scripture, Paul identifies two distinct entities. The first is the "old man” and the second is the "body of sin”. It is the body of sin which I want to draw attention to. Some brethren say that the body of sin is the same in meaning as the old man. I have to say however that this cannot be precisely true. It is true, that the old man, is all that which is inherited, and therefore which was true of our forefather Adam. It is not true to say that when we were born ourselves physically, we were somehow born with a crucified benefit in our lives, which is the other side of it’s meaning when speaking of the old man. Therefore if the old man is crucified in Christ, we would have to ask what to answer, to the problem of the body of sin and its meaning.

The "old man”, Paul says, is crucified in Christ. As this must be true, then we must ask, in what way does this benefit of inclusion in Christ’s death on the cross, become ours? It could only be after we were born of our father and mother. It could not be prior to this time because until we are physically born we cannot benefit experientially from anything at all. The answer to this question relies on a proper identification of the meaning of the second part of Romans 6:6 where we read about the "body of sin”. This Body” is the sarx or flesh which is the same word, flesh or fleshy, used in all of the scriptures under the header "The Testimony of Scripture” (above) in the body of the article. In simplicity the body of sin is the physical body itself.

There is another thought or revelation which we need to consider in this as well. When we speak about the "old man” we are definitely speaking about our physical inheritance, our very DNA which we received from Adam. We are however, not speaking about being Adam personally. Adam was an individual. We are ourselves individuals. We share the same physical substance that Adam had in his own body. What we cannot be is Adam himself. Adam was an individual, he was a man with his own personality and his own life. It is also correct to speak about the soul itself (volition, cognition and emotion), as the same soul in substance of image and likeness, which Adam had. What we cannot say, is that we are ourselves, Adam. We are not Adam, we are ourselves. And whilst we share the very same nature as Adam, both morally, physically, psychically and spiritually, we are in our essential beings unique. This is incredibly important to realise. It may seem somewhat obvious a thing to say, or else we may disagree in some way. Regardless of this, the significance of saying it, is not so obvious at all.

When Paul speaks of the "old man” and the "body of sin” he is making this distinction; albeit indirectly. The practical meaning of this is that Paul is pointing to the fact that whilst the "old man” is crucified in Christ, we have our very own bodies. Adam is not represented in us, we ourselves were represented in him when he sinned. Similarly Christ was not represented in us when he died, it is we who are represented in Christ. In just the same way that to benefit from this representation in Christ after we are born of water and Spirit, so must we see that in our own bodes (not Adam’s body) we are born in sin by representation. The evidence of this according to Paul is the power of sin working in our members. The instant we put this to the test and seek to obey the law of God, sin has its dominion over us and we die.

It is therefore absolutely necessary to comprehend and fully, that in reality of experience, the power of sin works through the members of our bodies and not simply in our soul’s directly, as though it were the soul itself which supplies the natural body with its lusts and passions. Although our souls are implicated in sin, through the heart, it is by consenting to sin, or agreeing to sin, or having a mind or heart to sin, that facilities the power of sin working in the members of our body to produce its inevitable consequence of sinning. In this arrangement our very soul itself, mind, emotions and the will, are taken prisoner to the body of sin, by consent. The body of sin can be freed from the power of sin and death through experiential identification with the cross unto death, and the soul can be freed from the restraints of the body itself, not by "self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body” but by resting in the finished work of the cross, by faith.

The basis for this liberation in the first instance, is the cross, and our inclusion in Christ, as the inclusion of the old man of Adam. The outworking of this liberty, is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which we receive into ourselves when we first received Christ Himself by faith, and were born again. This also deals with that third aspect of Adam as an essential person, and speaks of the tripartite nature of his being. When Adam first sinned he died, and in him, all of his progeny died as well, whereas through faith into Christ we shall live. The Scripture tells us that in the day Adam sinned, he died. This death is spiritual death. It is separation from God. This is the same day in which sin and death entered into Adam’s very body. It was many years before Adam finally died physically but in the end he did die physically as well. The Scripture tells us that it is given to all men to die once and then comes judgement. The soul however, is the thing which is judged. To be judged in this way you must firstly experience the full effect of death in the physical body. It must be clear in this that the soul does not cease to exist in death. Anymore than the soul itself can posses eternal life. The soul is of its own substance, it is neither the spirit of the man, nor is it the body of the man. The spirit may be truly dead, but the soul lives on. The body may truly die, but the soul lives on. One might say in all of this that the soul is an indestructible life."

You say that you are speaking of spiritual realities because you quote verses of scripture. Yet you miss the most fundamental reality of all. The new creature is Christ Himself crucified for sin unto death and raised from the dead in His own physical body. It's outworking is newness of life.

There is only one reason for writing these things and that is to address the use of the term "in Christ, neither male nor female" which speaks of that which is Spirit & Life. Those who press an unbalanced understanding of the calling of God in Christ Jesus to men and women always press this solitary point and miss its fuller meaning. They press what they imagine is spiritual wisdom because they can quote a single verse of scripture. Yet they destroy the balance which is found in scripture. Thus the proof for their argument must of necessity go beyond the scriptures and presses into philosophy and vanity. We cannot simply speak of so-called spiritual realities and ignore that which is under our very noses.

Let me ask you a question? When the judgement of the Great White Throne is come, will there be one name in the book of Life? Or will it be the names of men and women? Will it be "A New Creature" or will it be the names of individual men and women?

Lo the sound of windmills in my mind? How easy it is to call a man mad? That is the sixth time on this site that I have had my mental health brought into question. When do you suppose it will stop?

I think this outline is very balanced.

Women in the Church.

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/womeninchurch.html

amrkelly, no need to start another thread on the "old man". I have already ready your posts on the matter.

amrkelly, no need to start another thread on the "old man". I have already ready your posts on the matter.

Firstly it is not your place to advice me what I can and cannot do. Secondly I was answering your mockery in your last post, which I did politely and respectfully. Lastly do not press me brother you have no idea what you are doing.

I guess you better define "true person". True person before Christ would be your old man. Isn't that who you truly were in your thoughts and character? The New Man has the mind of Christ, is a branch in the Tree. The true person of the old man, was a branch in Satan, the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". The "root" of your "true person" was different. Do you not have a new root? I never heard of the biblical term, "True Person". When I think of "true person", before Christ, I think of a denier and hater of God, a selfish, self-centred, person. Just-In.

What you wrote here may be lost on others, but it is not lost one me. Instead of always avoiding a meaningful discussion on the subject of this OP why not engage it according to what you really believe and say it plainly. Siding with others is divisive unless it is a necessary thing to do in order to protect someone from abuse. Therein lies your actual motive for your one line comments in what you perceive to be a necessary defence of Krautfrau; and we both know it. The distance of thousands of miles does not make for a veil which cannot be opened.

Personally I would very much like to have a better understanding of the part sisters have in the ministry of the word. Most of what I read however is an eclectic mixture of truth and error. It is not yet necessary for me to have such an understanding as I have no purpose in it, in experience or responsibility in the church. The things I am concerned with, many believers would find a stumbling stone and would end up in hating women. I have never hated women nor am I ever likely to do either. In fact I have a great respect for the women and do understand why many women have been offended. Satan does not wage his war against the air, he wages it against men and women from the air. It's outworking is what concerns me, regardless as to what that means.

amrkelly,

Let me be clear. I have no problem with you starting another thread on the "old man", just that it would be polite not to hijack this one.

And please, there is no need to try to intimidate with your "true person".

Regarding, mocking, I was referring to Don Quixote, not so much to indicate that you were mad, (you misunderstood me) as I would never do that in referring to another person. I was referring to the fact that you were needlessly fighting at something where there was no "fight."

If you are pressed to the point of threatening someone, then please look to your own heart as to why something like that is rising up in you and where it's root is from. I assure you, it is not coming from me.

Thank you for calling me brother, I consider you one, also.

And please, there is no need to try to intimidate with your "true person".

That is precisely what I mean. Don't play games brother you have no idea what you are doing.

Say what you will, Amr, I fear God not men and you should, too. I don't play games and know that your threat does not come from God. Maybe you broke your self-imposed absence too early. Your attitude towards others is still incendiary and combative.