Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Women Preachers, A Story Often Neglected

posted by Scot McKnight

Telling the truth of the Church’s Story means telling the whole story. In the Church’s Story are the stories of women who did mighty things. But these stories are not being told. What can we do to include these stories in our church’s story?

The following is from Arise and is written by Priscilla Pope-Levison…

From Arise, the weekly e-newsletter from Christians for Biblical Equality.

Priscilla Pope-Levison is Professor of Theology and Assistant Director of Women’s Studies, Seattle Pacific University, affiliate faculty in Women Studies, University of Washington, and a United Methodist clergywoman.

*     *     *     *     *

The momentous contribution of women evangelists to American life, past and present, is only now emerging from dusty archives shelves, where their sermons, diaries, papers, and autobiographies were boxed away. These women have been notably absent from the history of American evangelism, which conventionally moves in a single-gender trajectory: Jonathan Edwards–Charles Finney–Dwight Moody–Billy Sunday–Billy Graham. A decade ago, when preparing for an introductory lecture on American evangelism, I was inundated by resources on these men. With my simple question–were there any women?–the first stirrings toward a nearly forgotten history began to transpire. To summarize briefly the enormous impact of women evangelists, we will consider four arenas: institutions, social outreach, political impact, and audience numbers.

Institutions: they provided for the education and nurture of converts as well as future generations by founding denominations, educational institutions from grade school to university, and a host of churches from New York to California.

Social outreach: they often incorporated humanitarianism along with evangelism. Sojourner Truth solicited aid for freed slaves living in squalid camps in the nation’s capital city. Phoebe Palmer began Five Points Mission, one of America’s first urban mission centers, in a New York City slum. Within two months after Aimee Semple McPherson’s Angelus Temple Free Dining Hall opened in 1931, its workers had already fed more than 80,000 hungry people, and the Angelus Temple Commissary, opened in 1927, was crucial to the survival of many in Los Angeles during the Depression. In terms of race relations, women evangelists wielded influence by holding integrated meetings, like Jarena Lee, whose audiences in the 1820’s included “white and colored,” “slaves and the holders,” and “Indians.” This practice continued into the twentieth century with Aimee Semple McPherson’s and Kathryn Kuhlman’s integrated services.

Political impact: they influenced the nation’s leaders as well as the populace. Harriet Livermore preached in Congress several times between 1827 and 1843 about the predicament of Native Americans. Sojourner Truth generated a petition and presented it to President Ulysses S. Grant requesting that a colony for freed slaves be established in the western United States. Jennie Fowler Willing’s speech on women and temperance in 1874 prompted many who heard it to consider forming a national temperance organization. Through her periodical, Woman’s Chains, Alma White supported the platform of the National Woman’s Party, including the Equal Rights Amendment.

Audience numbers: They preached to audiences often numbering in the thousands. During her 1889 Oakland revival, Maria Woodworth-Etter repeatedly packed to capacity her 8000-seat tent. Aimee Semple McPherson’s church in Los Angeles had a 5300-seat auditorium, which filled up three times for Sunday services. Uldine Utley preached in Madison Square Garden to a crowd of 14,000. Numbers are impossible to gauge for Kathryn Kuhlman’s radio program, “Heart-to-Heart,” which was regularly broadcast for over 40 years, or her long-running CBS television program.

*     *     *     *     *

Turn the Pulpit Loose: Two Centuries of American Women Evangelists, by Priscilla Pope-Levison, uncovers this nearly forgotten history, as does this website.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(42)
post a comment
Beberoni

posted August 30, 2010 at 10:06 am


If my church ever goes to having a woman pastor I will leave immediately, as it is wrong according to the Holy Scriptures. Paul says, “Women shall have no authority over men”, and women should not teach to men. This usurps the natural order God has set, where the man is to be the spiritual leader and the stronger one, both physically and spiritually. Im all for women having study groups and teaching one another, but they are not to be leading the church. If you have a problem with this, take it up with God. I didnt say it or make it that way, He did. And I will seek to obey His word. Women do not belong in the pulpit, and thats just how it is.



report abuse
 

Linda

posted August 30, 2010 at 10:21 am


I second what Beberoni said, women are not to have authority or teach men in the church. That is what the Word of God says, and if you disagree your problem is with God.



report abuse
 

Amanda

posted August 30, 2010 at 10:22 am


Beberoni,
Do you greet one another with a holy kiss? Do you forbid women to wear jewelry? Do you insist women wear head coverings? In other words, I think you are picking and choosing what you want to insist on when you read the Bible.



report abuse
 

Jennifer

posted August 30, 2010 at 10:30 am


I was lucky enough to take Patricia’s class on Women in Christianity a number of years ago – her book, and the class, had a huge impact on me, even though I was already firmly pro-women’s ordination. Her book is certainly worth reading.
captcha: anointed is



report abuse
 

LD

posted August 30, 2010 at 11:18 am


Amazing to see that women are treated with far greater respect in the secular world.
Today, church culture, by in large, is quite unlike Jesus’ honor and regard for women.
Love is absent. Witness Bereoni as an exemplar.
Christian culture leaves much to be desired for any woman who is intelligent, single, and skilled (etc.) and used to being treated as a (near) equal. Her gifts are ignored, as certain scant writings of Paul are massaged to make Christians believe that the church at Corinth 2,000 years ago is the exact model for us (all churches) today.
Why did not Paul tell EVERY church what he told Corinth? Because they had a particular malady, of which he had a particular remedy.
Men who [likely] hoped to not be embarrassed around their secular counterparts, could, and did, pull this passage from its context to push it as an edict for all church structure. The people of the Church began to act and conduct the ecclesiastic goings-on like the surrounding culture…Quickly “forgetting” and ignoring Paul’s message that Christians are to use their *gifts*.
We are submit to each other. AND don’t this way keep us humble and ready for God’s use?
We cannot suffer fools who try to squelch the Holy Spirit, or blaspheme his work, and gifts to Christians: male or female.



report abuse
 

Kevin S.

posted August 30, 2010 at 11:30 am


While I attend a church that does not allow women to be pastors (and agree with my church’s position on that score), I see no reason to sweep the contributions of female preachers under the rug. There is a biblical case for women in the pastorate, especially if men aren’t stepping up to the plate (as has been the case at times throughout history).
To which, if the goal is to urge more Christians to commemorate the accomplishments of women, it would be effective to highlight precisely where men had failed. Charity and care for the poor in the latter 19th century is a good example.
If we focus on sheer impact as a measurement of contribution to the kingdom, we can lose sight of the kingdom. We are left extolling women like Alma White, whose legacy was mixed at best. Same goes for the temperance movement, which some might cite as a pitfall of women in church leadership



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted August 30, 2010 at 11:42 am


Beberoni and Linda,
I’m vested in this issue in my book called The Blue Parakeet.
I understand where you are coming from: I know you want to remain faithful to the Bible, but I’d like you to consider two things:
1. There’s nothing in the Bible that permits you to focus so much on the “pulpit” on a Sunday morning and say that’s just for men, and here’s why:
2. Our Bible, yours and mine, have women who are virtual presidents of the nation of Israel (that’s more than executive; it involves spiritual and moral leadership) — Deborah; there are women who are major prophets (Huldah); there are women who are prophets in the New Testament (Philip’s daughters); Phoebe is a deacon; and Junia is called an “apostle”.
The question is this: Do women do in your church what God called them to do and permitted them to do and the early church sanctioned them to do in your church?



report abuse
 

YourName

posted August 30, 2010 at 12:03 pm


I wouldn’t join a church or denomination that doesn’t permit women pastors. It is a sin to forbid a woman to exercise a call. Men should not play God.
Why would God would call women to pastoral leadership and then also say in His word that it cannot possibly happen? Too often we decide that the women must be mistaken because God put men in charge.
Barring women from pastoral leadership falls under the same category of Bible as does slavery…. a part of Jewish society and culture that came from Paul’s worldview. I doubt if asked directly he’d attribute his writings and advice as the verbatim Word of God.



report abuse
 

Diana Janz

posted August 30, 2010 at 12:03 pm


Apart from the issue of women in the church, I am a member of the Angelus Temple today. We are a church that never sleeps because we still feed the hungry of LA. We also provide clothing, shelter and programs for the poor and desperate.
Aimee used to leave the back door of the Manse open. It sits right next to the Temple and if anyone did not have a token to take the bus home after service they could walk in, reach into a special receptacle she had provided and extract the tokens they needed.
In her day both both movie stars and the poor attended. That is still true.
On the issue of women in the church. Thank you, Scott. It always fascinates me how people can gloss over what the bible actually says happened in the daily working out of lives. At best, it can be confusing, but I believe God gives clarity when we witness the awesome things He has gifted women to do now and in the past.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted August 30, 2010 at 12:06 pm


YourName,
Beside my not appreciating your anonymity, which encourages stronger words than when a person identifies himself or herself, your viewpoint to me is disrespectful toward those with whom you disagree. Furthermore, I’m putting the best possible angle on your last paragraph and it sounds almost anti-Semitic to me. Are you suggesting that Jews were chauvinistic?



report abuse
 

Paul Steele

posted August 30, 2010 at 1:41 pm


Perhaps we should look at this from the point of view that leadership in the Church is based more on character than on sex/race/class. Men shouldn’t think they are entitled to leadership positions just because they are men if they lack Christian character. Just as women shouldn’t strive for leadership based on a notion of equality if they lack godly character. In my mind a woman of character makes a better leader for the church than a man of questionable character.



report abuse
 

AHH

posted August 30, 2010 at 2:13 pm


I wish the author had found other 20th-century examples.
Aimee Semple McPherson and Kathryn Kuhlman? If I were a complementarian (which I’m not), I’d be tempted to say something like “see how things veer into spiritual left field when women preach”. Which could be countered by pointing to simliar males like Benny Hinn or Ken Copeland …



report abuse
 

JoeyS

posted August 30, 2010 at 2:40 pm


Beberoni, I would just like to point out that you have misquoted scripture. I hope that it was unintentional and not for the purpose of furthering your point.
You said: “Paul says, “Women shall have no authority over men”, and women should not teach to men.”
What Paul actually said was, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”
Please note that Paul says “a woman” not women. And in verse 15 he gives us reason to believe that he is referring to a specific person, as he uses the phrase, “she will be saved” rather than “women will be saved.” “She” is referring back to “a woman” from verse 11-12. Now to infer that Paul was speaking generally about “women” is to assume that he was flagrant with his words, which we know is not true. For the most part he was very intentional with how he worded his letters.
And Linda – I ask this in all honesty: If you believe that women should not instruct men then why do you insist on coming on this blog to do just that?
I value the insight of women here so I believe that you have every right to speak into these conversations but your doing so is not consistent with your stance that women ought to remain silent.
captcha: percent interpet



report abuse
 

Brian in NZ

posted August 30, 2010 at 2:48 pm


Captcha: stumbled up
This seems appropriate for a subject that causes so much distraction from the gospel by focusing on laws. I think the Pharisees would love it in today’s church society.



report abuse
 

RD

posted August 30, 2010 at 2:49 pm


I honestly don’t mean to turn this into a political discussion, but it always amazes me that there are so many Christians who seem to be very inconsistent on this issue. So many complimentarians are also active tea partiers. I always have to ask: Are you telling me that you would vote for Sarah Palin to be the president and have absolutely no problem doing that, but wouldn’t allow her to lead your church as pastor? You can trust he with the nuclear launch codes but not with your congregation???



report abuse
 

Kevin S.

posted August 30, 2010 at 3:06 pm


@JoeyS
How does verses 13-14 factor into your exegesis here?
@RD
“Are you telling me that you would vote for Sarah Palin to be the president and have absolutely no problem doing that, but wouldn’t allow her to lead your church as pastor? You can trust he with the nuclear launch codes but not with your congregation???”
It is not an issue of trust, it is an issue of what commands for the church. I do not oppose women as pastors because I think they are incompetent, but because I believe they have a different role in the church.
Incidentally, Tea Partiers are less likely to support Palin than Republicans in general, but that’s neither here nor there. Less incidentally, I am not a “tea partier”, and so cannot speak for them, I suppose.



report abuse
 

JoeyS

posted August 30, 2010 at 3:30 pm


Kevin S.
vs. 13-14: “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”
Well we should probably begin by breaking down these two verses. Verse 13 tells us that Adam was created first, and then Eve. He then uses that understanding to explain that Eve was, therefore, deceived. Eve’s being deceived is directly related to her being created after Adam.
The common assumption is that this gives credence for, as Beberoni put it earlier, the belief that the order of creation implies authority. Go back and read Genesis 1-3 and you will not see this hierarchy at all. What you do see is mutual responsibility given to both man and woman from God. Another way to understand what Paul might mean here is to suggest that Paul is implying that Eve’s shorter time on earth gave her less opportunity to learn how to avoid deception. She was created later, and was therefore deceived. The same would be true for a child being more easily deceived than an adult.
If Paul is referring to a specific woman, which is what the text seems to indicate, then it would not be far fetched for him to explain that she was deceived because of her immaturity. To imply that this immaturity then applies to all women for all time is not faithful to the text. Rather, Paul is using Eve as a parallel – she was young in her relationship with God and therefore more easily deceived. But the birth of a child (note, not through child bearing) has brought restoration.



report abuse
 

Allan R. Bevere

posted August 30, 2010 at 3:54 pm


I have commented on this blog often when I read self-critical appraisals of evangelicalism simply to say that things in my Mainline world are not all that they are cracked up to be either. But here is one place where I am proud of my United Methodist tradition. We do ordain women which is based on a dynamic reading of the NT texts as opposed to the flat, static ones I’m reading here. No, it’s not perfect. We still have churches that “crucify” women pastors because of their anatomy, but for the most part we seek to fulfill what St. Peter said on that first Christian Day of Pentecost, that our sons and our daughters in the lasts days will prophesy (Acts 2:17) which refers not to telling the future, but to proclamation to preaching.
My experience teaching in seminary is that approximately 40-50% of my students are women entering full-time ministry of some kind. I’m sure it varies from seminary to seminary, but I for one find it to be wonderful experience.
Acts chapter 2 is indeed being fulfilled!



report abuse
 

Bill Donahue

posted August 30, 2010 at 3:54 pm


Thanks Scot for always grounding us in the Scripture on this. In most schools (like my personal experience in a Reformed and in a Dispensational seminary) we tend to tell students what the other guys (gals) think then refute it. Then one day I actually listened to women scholars describe the scholarship — not the political hype, or the evangelical party line — and I investigated it myself.
There is rigorous scholarship here, respect for the authority of the text, insight into sources men tend to miss or avoid, and a lack of male-language bias. I remember in Greek class hearing how important word order is. “Notice it is Barnabas and Saul/Paul until Paul becomes the prominent one; then you see Paul and Barnabas in the text from that point.” Hmmm. How about Priscilla and Aquila? She is almost always first. Together they taught Apollos (probably with Priscilla in the lead) much like Lydia who had authority to guide a house church and was a businesswoman (can it be?? A Margaret Thatcher type leader?). They built and led house churches.
And if I recall, it seems it was God (not some N.O.W. committee) who put Deborah in charge over Barak in Judges 4. She was a leader and prophet who spoke authoritatively for Him to guide Israel, as Scot mentions.
And then there is the Romans 16 list. These women were much more than bible study leaders and dessert bringers (bot of which I have done, by the way, and have great value in community). They were also fellow ministers — like Timothy, Titus, Luke and the rest.
It is time to rise up and declare that God gave us men and women in leadership – together. Not Women leaders. Not Men Leaders. A community of leaders sharing authority, gifts, real spiritual power and humility for the kingdom as envisioned in Genesis 1 and unfolded in the Church in fulfillment of Joel 2. Preach it ladies; preach it men; preach it together and let’s get on with it.



report abuse
 

John W Frye

posted August 30, 2010 at 4:08 pm


Does anyone besides me think it is both funny and tragic that those who rant about women not being eligible to preach/lead the church tell those of us who disagree with them “to take it up with God”? The idiotic implication in the challenge is that 1) they are squarely and confidently on God’s side or God has condescended to theirs, and 2) we who are more egalitarian have not ever taken it up with God, and somehow by some wicked work, we have avoided God and formulated an abominable position. It just makes you want to engage this fruitful conversation, doesn’t it?



report abuse
 

barb

posted August 30, 2010 at 4:11 pm


Beberoni and Linda claim that the Bible teaches that “Women should have no authority over men.” (BTW–their comments seem to have a kind of ‘drive-by’ quality, as opposed to really joining into a discussion)
I actually kind of appreciate it when someone takes this all-or-nothing stance because it doesn’t seem to allow for any ‘complimentarianism’. They can hold that view if they want to–but I just wonder what other restrictions we would find in their churches. The complimentarian, IMHO, has a harder case to build–because just where do you draw the line? How do you determine ‘women’s different role’ when as Scot says in the Blue Parakeet we find women in the Bible performing in the same roles as the men. Can i teach women, yes, can i teach girls, yes, can i teach boys?–if so at what age do they become men and i can’t teach them any more. Can I write a textbook? Can men read it? etc. etc. etc.
Allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to people and call them to ministry seems like a good way to go for me. I’m an Elder in my church, I lead adult classes with men in them, I haven’t preached–but I could.



report abuse
 

John W Frye

posted August 30, 2010 at 4:16 pm


One more thing, women are not God’s plan B in the church. We’re told that when godly men are scarce, women, though ineligible to lead and teach, may do so. Is not the sheer stupidity of this argument apparent? Is there any more glaring exhibit of EISegesis? Poor God. God can’t find or produce a godly man in a certain era or field of ministry, so God settles for a woman in violation (apparently) of his own divinely inspired rules.



report abuse
 

BIll

posted August 30, 2010 at 4:59 pm


I have become uncomfortable with the notion that we should feel free to revise or ignore Scriptures on the basis of the prevailing cultural norms (e.g., as men and women are of equal value therefore suggesting women can?t preach or teach men is simply wrong), however, I am just as uncomfortable with the notion that we take a verse of Scripture and give that verse paramount and overriding scope (obviously here the verse from Corinthians ? maybe that is proof texting but that is a pejorative which I want to avoid). Finally, to suggest that women have the call from the Holy Spirit to lead and teach and that?s sufficient, well it isn?t, because if what we believe is the Holy Spirit calling, but that calling would be at odds with the Scriptures, maybe it someone else doing the calling.
Paul was, as I understand the accepted academic analysis, responding to specific situations existing in Corinth, and very well may have been responding to a question or commenting on the actions of a woman in the new church there. I tend to read Paul within the context of the NT as a whole, in light of Jesus of course, and seek to come to a place of coherency. I have always been captivated by the Acts reference to Prisca teaching (explaining, exposing, whatever) Apollos to a fuller understanding of the Gospel. I know that was Luke?s writings, but I have no doubt Paul was aware of this, along with Paul?s other references to the functioning of women in seemingly all forms of the mission (Scot McKnight for one reference provides a much more detailed, reasoned and better said articulation of the point). Thus it seems a much harder position to defend ? that Paul expressly intended universally to bar women from preaching or teaching men.



report abuse
 

Kevin S.

posted August 30, 2010 at 7:10 pm


“If Paul is referring to a specific woman, which is what the text seems to indicate, then it would not be far fetched for him to explain that she was deceived because of her immaturity.”
It seems far fetched to me to appeal to the origins of man with regard to gender boundaries in an instance involving one woman in particular. If my wife is out of line in her behavior toward me (a blissfully infrequent occurrence), I would perhaps appeal to Proverbs 31, or perhaps the verses pertaining to patience.
It is not at all clear to me that the remainder of the text is referring to a specific woman, as it has been interpreted to read with the indefinite article. At minimum, it would compel me to read 13-14 in a straightforward way.



report abuse
 

Kevin S.

posted August 30, 2010 at 8:00 pm


“Does anyone besides me think it is both funny and tragic that those who rant about women not being eligible to preach/lead the church tell those of us who disagree with them “to take it up with God”?”
Who here is ranting? Who here is telling anyone “to take it up with God?”
“The idiotic implication in the challenge is that 1) they are squarely and confidently on God’s side or God has condescended to theirs, and 2) we who are more egalitarian have not ever taken it up with God, and somehow by some wicked work, we have avoided God and formulated an abominable position.”
Insofar as this implication is “idiotic”, so too is the implication that those who are not egalitarian have never considered the passage about jewelry or greeting each other with a holy kiss. So let’s mutually avoid the condescension and the labels (“idiocy”, “petulant”, “sheer stupidity”)… As you rightly insinuate, it does not produce fruitful conversation.
“Poor God. God can’t find or produce a godly man in a certain era or field of ministry, so God settles for a woman in violation (apparently) of his own divinely inspired rules.”
Ironically, hard core Calvinists make precisely the same argument when it comes to female leaders. It is not my interpretation of scripture that, when absent leadership, God simply created a leader out of thin air.
The evidence suggests that he did what he could, and that even Deborah acknowledged her situation was unconventional. As someone who believes in free will, I can see where humans have left God in the lurch when it comes to locating qualified leaders.



report abuse
 

JoeyS

posted August 30, 2010 at 8:50 pm


Kevin S,
You haven’t done anything to show that how you are reading it is, in fact, a straightforward reading. The issue here is that there is no indefinite article but only a definite one: gune – a particular woman.
The text starts by referring to a specific woman (gune), appeals to Adam and Eve, and then claims that “she” is restored by the birth of a child. That is as straightforward as you can get. To imply otherwise, I argue, is actually a poor reading of the text.



report abuse
 

Kevin S.

posted August 30, 2010 at 9:07 pm


“The issue here is that there is no indefinite article but only a definite one: gune – a particular woman.”
You are imputing the word “particular”. It is certainly the indefinite usage, meaning “a woman”, “a wife” etc…
It is not impossible that he was referring to a specific person, but it is certainly not necessarily so, and the context would render this absurd, in my view.



report abuse
 

Colleen

posted August 30, 2010 at 10:28 pm


One of the many factors that’s led me and my husband away from our current church is that complementarianism comes down on women there like a ton of bricks. Men who are not pastors and have no pastoral training preach sermons there all the time, but women preaching or teaching, ever, would be completely unacceptable. In fairness, I can vouch that the men who preached were all excellent people who had been in some degree of leadership in the church, but the overall impression is still that the requirement for preaching is a Y-chromosome.
In complementarian circles, I feel like I’m caught in a ridiculous semantic game. A woman can write a book about theology, but she can’t read it aloud (the bookstore also won’t stock it unless it’s specifically about womany stuff). Women can’t be care group leaders, just “care group leaders’ wives” (for real). There are no female elders, but there are deaconesses with suspiciously similar duties.
I can’t imagine what kind of character God would need to have to want us trapped in such a bizarre set of contradictions.



report abuse
 

Hannah Nedrow

posted August 31, 2010 at 2:04 am


Having grown up as a pastor’s daughter in a complementarian setting (though I don’t think my father himself is opposed to women preachers) and having attended both Moody Bible and Dallas Seminary, I was pleasantly surprised to find that Korean churches welcomed my preaching with open arms, not at all minding that I was a women in her early 20’s. Perhaps “welcomed” is not the right word. I had no intention of preaching and preferred to sit in a dark room exegeting or reading blogs. But they strongly insisted that I preach to the whole congregation as part of a rotating schedule. It was difficult to refuse, so I accepted. It was a fantastic experience for me during the four years I attended that church.
Perhaps it is a case of a prophet being without honor in his own land, but when I go home to the church where I grew up (my father has retired from the pastorship), no one asks me to do anything. I don’t even get to give the announcements. Nothing.
As Scot asked, “What can we do to include these stores in our churches’ stories?” I would say that anyone who has any sort of speaking or teaching role in their local church should take a few minutes to share these stories. Wouldn’t hurt to tell our own children around the dinner table either.



report abuse
 

John W Frye

posted August 31, 2010 at 8:07 am


kevin s (#25),
I invite you to read comments #1 and #2.
Peace.



report abuse
 

Kevin S.

posted August 31, 2010 at 10:30 am


@John
Okay, I didn’t see that in the comment until now. I still don’t think anyone here is ranting.



report abuse
 

Sharon Rubenstein

posted September 7, 2010 at 6:44 pm


I find it noteworthy that women were mainly the human beings who stayed with Jesus at the cross. All but John ran away. They certainly would have suffered themselves to die with Him on the cross if they could have. People who believe that women should not preach should go into a deeper study of the Bible i.e. the Hebrew Greek Word Study Bible which gives some of the Greek and Hebrew meanings of what Paul said. Some are very attached to the letter of the law regarding women’s place in the church rather than the spirit of the law. Didn’t Jesus have to “teach” the men He made apostles. Didn’t the women already know Him? The woman who came into the dinner at Simon the Pharisee’s house was the only one there who knew Jesus was God. The men didn’t know, certainly Simon didn’t know.



report abuse
 

Rev. Diggs

posted October 7, 2010 at 6:48 pm


I find it note worthy to read Genesis 2:16-17, and all of Genesis 3. 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2: 10-14. Point being, when God says no…he means NO! Churches endow and bestow the title of Minister of a Church…God endows and bestows entitlement of Prophet. And because this entitlement comes from God and no one else…then it is hard for man to know who is a true Prophet…didn’t God say beware of false Prophets? Yes, a woman can be a Prophet of God…but NOT a Minister of the church. What? Feel like you can delete or add words to the Bible? Suggested reading…Revelations 22:18-19…dont get caught up in Satans whisperers…that was Eves mistake…and Jesus had to pay for our sins! But did you know…Jesus only died for us ONE time!!! Read Hebrews 10:26



report abuse
 

Rad McGauhey

posted October 24, 2010 at 1:09 pm


Having come out of a Hierarchalist heritage, and doing some serious study about women’s roles, I find it very interesting to note how quickly some believers jump to I Corinthians 14:34,35 and I Timothy 2:10-14 to justify their conclusions about women’s roles. It’s very dangerous to establish an important theology like women’s roles on 2 short sentences about women in the New Testament. Those wanting to understand these scriptures would do well to look deeply into the background of these letters, and then I believe men’s eyes can be opened up about these scriptures. Paul never intended for these scriptures to literally address all women for all times. There were specifice problems and specific women that these scriptures were intended for–and those women were in the church of Corinth and Ephesus.
I’m deeply grateful that I’ve been enlightened by my study of women’s roles in the Kingdom, and the women in our church are able to use their gifted lives without any feelings of distain. Women played a vital role in the ministries of Jesus and Paul–See Luke 8:1-3 and Romans 16. And I can’t concieve of them running the ministries of washing clothes, cooking meals and cleaning up after the men? Women in the Corinthian church both propesied and prayed publicly, I Corinthians 11:4,5. I praise God that in many places the spiritual shackles have been removed from gifted women and they can use their gifts for the Lord. Perhaps one day we’ll witness another Debra being used by God to move His Kingdom (Judges 4 & 5)!!



report abuse
 

Truth of God

posted October 29, 2010 at 2:32 pm


Two short sentences? Really? Read all of 1 Corinthians 11 if you are going to selectively ramble about women in church roles. So, are you willing to ignore what there bible says? Interesting, then lets ignore the whole thing shall we? The majority of the bible from Genesis to Revelations talks about how easily woman is deceived. Two faced hypocrite people talk about how great God and Jesus and the bible but refuse to obey word for word, yup they want it their way or no way! Remember what Jesus said….Behold I come quickly, blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book…..Revelations 22:7 I guess the opposite of blessed is damned right? I guess the opposite of keeping to the words of the bible are those people who misguide people away from what the bible says, right? Who in the bible was also misled away from Gods words? Oh yeah that’s right….EVE!!!!!!



report abuse
 

Truth of God

posted October 29, 2010 at 3:08 pm


The Christian way to God is through Jesus. The bible was NOT meant to be a suggestion on how to live despite what people like Rad seems to think. The bible is meant to be followed word for word to the letter. We as Christians follow the new Testament, not the old as Jesus said all old things shall pass away and also Hebrews talks more about this……her is an example, Hebrews 8:13. The bible WAS and IS meant to be taken literally and as for 1 Corinthians and Timothy…where does it say only certain women? IT DONT. It speaks in general words that even a fifth grader can comprehend DO NOT means simply DO NOT! it does NOT mean…ok, if you want go ahead cuz these words don’t apply to EVERY ONE. Its simple really, listen and follow the serpent or the words of the bible.



report abuse
 

Michael's Legion

posted November 30, 2010 at 5:08 am


@ Sharon Rubenstein. The comment that Sharon Rubenstein Comment #32 made is a prime example of why woman can’t be Ministers She states “The woman who came into the dinner at Simon the Pharisee’s house was the only one there who knew Jesus was God. The men didn’t know, certainly Simon didn’t know.” Really? Is this what women think? Jesus is God? God is Jesus? That is partly right. All men are created in the image of God. But Jesus is NOT God. Jesus is the son of God a separate entity. Woman would have you believe that God is crazy. Who sits beside God’s thrown? God? Then who sits in God’s thrown? Does got sit beside himself? Why would Jesus cry out on the cross ” Father, why has thou forsaken me?” Was God talking to himself? Come on people. It tells you who is who in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 11 says that the head of man is JESUS and the head of woman is MAN and the head of Jesus is GOD!!!!!! Did you get that? The head of Jesus is GOD!!!! Why do you think when we pray to God we always end it in “in Jesus’ name, amen.” Because we as man are directed to pray to God through Jesus. This is why God say’s in the Bible that the way to God and heaven is ONLY through Jesus.Most people (woman preachers TEACH that God, Jesus and the Ghost are the same but that is FALSE!!!! They are all FROM God but separate entities!!! Don’t be fooled in believing what people say, It’s what the Bible say’s in the NEW Testament that matters!!! I pray for those who blindly follow the wrong way…. I pray for those LOST sheep who blindly follow the wrong Shepard!!!! I pray for those who say don’t take the Bible literally or like Sharon say’s “Some are very attached to the letter of the law regarding women’s place in the church rather than the spirit of the law.” Dang right….I would rather follow the “letter of the law” rather then treat the Bible is a mere suggestion like Sharon would seem to treat it as “spirit of the law”. The Bible was meant to be followed the way it was written plain and simple!!!!



report abuse
 

Amanda

posted December 10, 2010 at 6:34 pm


The Bible says this: Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
God has raised up Many women to preach and teach His Word. ALL must witness and bare fruit.
Here is one wonderful Pastor who took many souls to the kingdom with her.
Enjoy!!!
http://www.archive.org/details/TonyAndSusanAlamoChristianTelevisionProgram



report abuse
 

Truth Of God

posted January 8, 2011 at 2:34 am


@ Amanda. The Bible says this: Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: TRUE but NOT in the church. There is a BIG difference between Prophet and a Minister in the church. A woman pastor will be the Shepard who leads her flock to the arms of Satan. God does say, beware of false Prophets!



report abuse
 

J.L. Otto

posted May 24, 2011 at 5:02 pm


All of you who are so sure what the bible says about whatever topic had best take a step back and look at how Jesus had to continually RE-INTERPRET the pharisee bible literalism in his day to get in tune with a LIVING GOD who is not stuck in the pages of a book written when the world was flat and seamonsters still lived in the oceans.

The fact is that in the Juadaism of Paul’s day, men were the spiritual head of the family while women were the spiritual head of the home. A man represented the family in the PUBLIC Arenas of synagogue and temple and was in the role of teaching the family what he learned in synagogue. Meanwhile the women kept a kosher home, taught the children the basics and were the ones to OPEN the SABBATH worship which was IN THE HOME.

That’s what the Bible is referring to. And when the gospel came into contact with the GENTILES, they tried to enforced this same culture.
GUESS WHAT??? It was not God’s plan for the Gentiles!

In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, men nor women, but all are one in Christ……..and in the latter days I will pour out my spirit upon ALL FLESH and YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS will prophecy……(folks also try to learn what a prophet is! What do you say about Jesus, “we thought he was a prophet sent by God” check our these words from Luke 24 before you think you can shove women into some small role in the church.)

Finally why not study GNOSTICISM, the early churches version of the new age movement and the role of men and women….thoroughly rejected by the early church as HERESY>)

Thank God he chose to reveal the risen Jesus to the women FIRST, or perhaps only the women (as per Mark’s Gospel). If God thinks women can be witnesses, over again the legalism of THAT DAY, maybe its time to think through some narrow minded Bible reading.



report abuse
 

J.L. Otto

posted May 24, 2011 at 5:02 pm


All of you who are so sure what the bible says about whatever topic had best take a step back and look at how Jesus had to continually RE-INTERPRET the pharisee bible literalism in his day to get in tune with a LIVING GOD who is not stuck in the pages of a book written when the world was flat and seamonsters still lived in the oceans.

The fact is that in the Juadaism of Paul’s day, men were the spiritual head of the family while women were the spiritual head of the home. A man represented the family in the PUBLIC Arenas of synagogue and temple and was in the role of teaching the family what he learned in synagogue. Meanwhile the women kept a kosher home, taught the children the basics and were the ones to OPEN the SABBATH worship which was IN THE HOME.

That’s what the Bible is referring to. And when the gospel came into contact with the GENTILES, they tried to enforced this same culture.
GUESS WHAT??? It was not God’s plan for the Gentiles!

In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, men nor women, but all are one in Christ……..and in the latter days I will pour out my spirit upon ALL FLESH and YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS will prophecy……(folks also try to learn what a prophet is! What do you say about Jesus, “we thought he was a prophet sent by God” check our these words from Luke 24 before you think you can shove women into some small role in the church.)

Finally why not study GNOSTICISM, the early churches version of the new age movement and the role of men and women….thoroughly rejected by the early church as HERESY>)

Thank God he chose to reveal the risen Jesus to the women FIRST, or perhaps only the women (as per Mark’s Gospel). If God thinks women can be witnesses, over again the legalism of THAT DAY, maybe its time to think through some narrow minded Bible reading.



report abuse
 

Pastor Daniel Zuniga

posted August 14, 2011 at 5:43 am


What does the word, “Prophet” mean? A person chosen by God to speak for God. A person recognized as inspired to utter special revelations and predictions. (1 Cor. 12:28) A person sent by God to teach and lead people in a particular religion, Jesus is regarded as a prophet from God.
What is a Minister? A person authorized to conduct religious worship; member of the clergy; pastor. ect.
Yes, there were woman Prophets but, there were not and, absolutely forbidden woman ministers. A Prophet is an entitlement bestowed by God. A minister is an entitlement bestowed by members a of church.
Prophet and Minister, NOT the same.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.