I would just like to make a quick note (I'm working off my phone, so this won't be long) that although I believe woman can speak and teach, I also believe there are times and places for them to do so. I do not believe women should be in authority over men, and thus, I do not believe they should be the spiritual heads of God's people.

@Val! I loved all your post and agree with it 100%! I read it out at our bible study this morning it was so encouraging! Thank you!

@LadyEsmerelda I loved your post too! What an interesting, mature discussion this is turning into!

@Bush! How amazing Bush! God is good! I love that fact that you went away and studied this, it shows where your heart is! That is so encouraging.

I don't want you to think that if I disagree with someone I fall out with them. I think some people argue for the sake of arguing and then won't talk to you anymore when you disagree. I am not like that. I have friends who I don't agree with everything on, I don't mind that I disagree with them. I know teachers who I don't agree with some issues on, but none of them affect the gospel. However when it comes to changing the gospel of Jesus that's where I wouldn't listen to that person anymore.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


Paul repeats this again straight after the first to stress the importance of this statement. He even says 'an angel from heaven!' That is why I would no longer listen to either of their teachings. What they are more or less saying is that Jesus' death on the cross alone was not enough.

I'm afraid I've gone very off topic, I apologize! I'm willing to talk about it more in PM but only if you want to.

I'm not certain which Jordan this was addressed at, but either way, it was helpful as I was uncertain on that point.

I do agree with Esmerelda that it's a natural reaction for woman to lead when men will not. I don't believe that justifies it, though.

I want to state clearly that I believe the Bible teaches that woman are not to practice spiritual authority over men who are in an equal or higher Biblical position of submission.

What I mean by that is that it is entirely permissible for a woman to teach, preach to, and lead her son. Since my mother has been the primary source of spiritual leadership in my life (to the chagrin of several church leaders), I feel like I ought to know.

But I do not believe it is right for a woman to exercise spiritual authority over an adult man, her husband, or anyone more mature than herself.

Woman have an important spiritual authority over their children that has been neglected in the modern church.

And that is largely the fault of men.

But in general, I do not see how men are failing to meet the demand for spiritual leaders. I have heard that in England the church is mostly attended by women. This is certainly NOT true in my portion of the US.

Again, I'm talking about spiritual authority. I would have no problem with a female president or soccer coach. And I'm not taking females for granted, either. I do respect the spiritual authority of women when it is properly exercised.

Neil of Erk: I was addressing the Deborah comment towards you. Also, I did not mean to imply that the lack of male leadership justifies the rise in women leadership. I simply expounded on that because not a lot of people look at that as one of the causes and was pointing it out.

In general comment though, I do agree with Jordan's definition of leadership that he stated in the above post.

For the sake of how I address the debate, how do you define women leadership? Are we speaking of general leading, as in preaching from the pulpit, or having a ministry by speaking at conferences, and providing written and audible teaching material for anybody who cares to read it?

I'm referring to any exercise of spiritual authority. To preach is an authority. To lead is an authority. To discipline or disciple is an authority.

Etc.

And I'm not talking about authority over women. There's nothing wrong with mature women teaching other women (provided they follow the general rules about rebuking people who are older).

And I'm not talking about authority over their children, either.

Ok. I see where you're coming from now.

So this might not be the place to ask but...

What is your stance on what constitutes an older person, Jordan?

Totally off topic again, Ari, my basis for "aged" women is: Titus 2:3-5.

People who are either clearly more mature in the faith, and people who are clearly more mature in general, and people who are clearly older. (A significant age difference.)

Ok, I am back! If you are over the sight of my presence, (Which I'm sure you are) After this post, bind, gag, and throw me out in the snow, alright?

Back from some more research, Elanor! This will probably be my last post on the subject so I don't bore all you lovely people to tears on this subject.



Let's pause a moment. What is the Gospel? Well, from what few things I've found out in the space of a day, the Gospel is the Good News: It's Jesus' salvation plan. We are to preach the Gospel, which means spreading the news that people can be saved by repenting of your sins, 'believe in your heart, confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord'. In a nutshell, that is what the Gospel is. Having this part of the Bible right is the most vital part.



So what Paul is saying to the Galatians right here, is that they should not listen to anyone preaching a different salvation story. The Galatians had turned away from the simplicity of God's plan, see here:



Someone has misled these people into believing a different story of salvation. It could have been anything from they were saved if they paid taxes, or sacrificed animals, I don't know. But they have perverted the original salvation plan, and caused these people to stumble.

Preachers who teach in a ministry who uphold God's original plan for salvation are not the ones to be accursed. Whether or not these teachers believe Jesus descended to hell or not, (I don't) it doesn't affect their beliefs on being saved. What they believe about Jesus' death may not be true, but this does not mean they are trying to deceive people into believing a different Gospel. That is the view I have on the topic now.

As to the subject of women in positions of Spiritual leadership, my view stands (at the moment!) that this role is better suited to the Christian men of the world. However just as God did not make women inferior, or ban them from running a business or venture, I don't believe He would shun a woman who taught.



Notice it's not 'no respecter of men' or 'only the men in the nation'. I'm not trying to prove a point, or push an opinion on you, but I just thought it might be intriguing to share.

After all, I can't very well push a view or opinion on you if I'm not sure of where I'm standing there in the first place! I'm happy to discuss and watch you all discuss till I feel God has shown me the absolute truth of the matter.

*I hope this was not offensive to anyone, because it was certainly not written to cause anybody grief.

Okay, I agree with you then, Jordan. Just wanted to clarify age.

Hey guys! I just found a terrific verse that upholds much about women in Spiritual ministries!



Any thoughts on that?

I guess... that means... you disagree?

On a side note, I've heard from research that the Amplified Bible is the version closest to the original translation. Just repeating what I'd heard!

Yep. Though even if I used your version, it still doesn't really support either side.

* chuckles * Right, we won't go into that.

Ok! Well, I think that's all I've got to say on this topic. Won't be in here anymore, but if anyone would like to PM me, go ahead. Happy discussing.

How about we agree to disagree?

Of course. We kind of started this thread with that premise in mind.

A belated note/reply in answer to Airianna's excellent and lengthy post:

So you are drawing a correlation between Barak's treatment of Deborah and Eli's sons' treatment of the ark of God?

Depends on what correlation you are talking about, Jay.

Both were instruments of God, but Barak and the sons of Eli were trusting in the instrument as a 'good luck charm' rather than in the God who used them.

Right. They trusted in the created, rather than the Creator.

1 Corinthians 8-9

I was curious as to everyone's thoughts on this passage.

-Terra

What exactly would you like an opinion on, Terra? Are you asking if this applies to us?

Paul wrote that because of the times and persecutions under which the disciples were living.

That’s the really short answer, anyways, and I hate giving short answers.

Dropping a few ideas/questions. :)



God selected many flawed people to do his work. A great many of the men who gained distinction in the OT failed to be submissive to His will - does He hold women to a higher standard?




:o/ I'd argue that not all women are designed to be mothers. Some are not mentally/emotionally cut out for the job, some don't want children for various reasons, and some are unable to have children of their own (and since adoption is an expensive, lengthy drawn-out process, it's not an option for everyone).




That goes beyond simplified to inaccurate, I hate to say. Lower pack members (most often the omega wolf) tend the young while the rest of the pack hunts. The babysitters can be male or female, and they do change out who's on duty. Only the alpha pair in a pack mates (if other pack members get caught, they can face expulsion from the pack, or even death) and non-alpha males will often go looking for females in other packs to avoid getting in trouble with their own alphas. After playing Romeo-and-Juliet they go back to their own packs, leaving their girlfriend to face the music alone if she ends up in a family way.

In a pride of lions, the women-folk do a larger percentage of the hunting. ~_^