What about Deborah?

[shelly]

A lot of the objection to WO comes from the interpretations of the writings of Paul and his instructions about male female relationships in the church. But there is one glarring Old Testiment example that would seem to negate our current understanding of Paul's instructions. Judges were the spiritual leaders of the entire nation of Israel. Deborah was both prophetess and Judge. If a woman can be put in place as the spiritual leader of a nation why is it a problem for a woman to be ordained? How do we reconcile the example set forth by God and the words of Paul? I would think position of Judge would trump the position of ordained pastor. If a woman can be placed in a positon above local pastor what is the biblical issue with ordination. It can't be that women can't be the head of men because clearly Deborah was the spiritual head of a large group of men.

[Gerr]

At this point in my understanding, I don't care whether women get ordained or not, I just want order and unity. However, let me raise some issues as the devil's advocate.

1. Paul's arguments for male headship are not his own; they are firmly based on the OT.

2. His line of arguments are the following:

(a) Man was created FIRST; that's Genesis.

( Woman was created FROM man; that's Genesis.

© Woman was created FOR man and not man for woman.

3. Questions: (a)When Paul says, "The head of man is Christ," or "The dhead of Christ is God," Do you have a problem with that? If not, why is it that there is a problem when Paul says, "The man is head of a woman?"

(b)Is not Christ just as much or no less God than the Father? How then is the Father the head of Christ?

©Is the case of Deborah rather an exception because men have abandoned their position of headship instead of the rule?

[Gordon1]

Right Shelley,

We could pose the same legitimate question of EGW.

But male and female prophets are both rare and exceptionally different from those on the pastor treadmill.

Prophets don't ask for a job, seek a degree, or expect handouts.

Invariably they are hounded, even executed by the church, and are content to live by manual labour in straight circumstances.

That's who God calls.

This was the example of EGW, with her husband James.

Their walk, talk and dress will be different from most, and they'll be pushing reform and new light - living the SOP counsel and beyond.

They'll be easy to spot, but not found at the feet of a seminary prof. teaching 'Spiritual Formation'.

[Alchemy]

1 Cor. 11:3; But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (NKJV) (bold emphasis mine)

It is important to remember that Deborah rebuked Barak for letting her lead in battle. The man was supposed to lead whenever available. Judges 4:9

[olger]

It is fascinating to me to see abstract examples of women in the Bible seized upon as an excuse for normalizing female headship. Because that's all they have. I don't see kindred examples of people saying Barnabus was a man, or Apollos, and making a big deal out of that. Know why?

Because we don't have to. The Bible is clear on the topic of male headship.

[Tom Wetmore]

...not nearly as clear as the Roman Catholic Church has been regarding male headship.

[Alchemy]

It is fascinating to me to see abstract examples of women in the Bible seized upon as an excuse for normalizing female headship. Because that's all they have. I don't see kindred examples of people saying Barnabus was a man, or Apollos, and making a big deal out of that. Know why?

Because we don't have to. The Bible is clear on the topic of male headship.

Amen to that!

[Alchemy]

...not nearly as clear as the Roman Catholic Church has been regarding male headship.

Oh...The Bible is extremely clear that men are the head. The Roman Catholic Church just takes it way too far. But, there isn't any connection between male headship in God's church and the practice of the Roman Catholic Church.

Whereas, there is a very direct connection between paganism and female priests.

[Tom Wetmore]

But what the Bible means by that and what the Catholic says it means are separated by a vast chasm of difference, polar opposites actually. And what I am saying is that much of what I hear from the anti-WO, anti-WOPE, anti-women in ministry camp is lockstep with how the Catholic Church interprets the concept of headship. For the Catholic Church it is about authority and power and submission to that power and authority. That concept of submission is consequently quite distorted in that interpretation, because it is seen in relationship to authority. And they took it well beyond the husband/wife relationship to the relationship of all men in the church with all women. Because it is about authority and rulership that naturally engenders a hierarchy so that even among the men of the church, one must rule them all - the pope.

The authoritarian headship proponents like to emphasize those verses telling women to "submit" to their husbands, but almost always forget the directive that everyone should submit to each other - all men and all women. Elsewhere he described that idea as considering others better than yourself, or in other words, respect for others and humility about yourself. When Paul described what the "headship" relationship of a husband for a wife was like from the husbands point of view, he said, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." That is not about lording it over ones wife or rulership or authority or power. We know very well that Christ gave up everything and humbled himself and sacrificed himself, even unto death, for his bride. He came to serve, not to be served. And in the iconic and poignant object lesson with his disciples that we continue to practice, he performed the lowest of low servant jobs - washing their feet. Husbands are to do just as Jesus did for their own wives.

[Jeannieb43]

But what the Bible means by that and what the Catholic says it means are separated by a vast chasm of difference, polar opposites actually. And what I am saying is that much of what I hear from the anti-WO, anti-WOPE, anti-women in ministry camp is lockstep with how the Catholic Church interprets the concept of headship. For the Catholic Church it is about authority and power and submission to that power and authority. That concept of submission is consequently quite distorted in that interpretation, because it is seen in relationship to authority. And they took it well beyond the husband/wife relationship to the relationship of all men in the church with all women. Because it is about authority and rulership that naturally engenders a hierarchy so that even among the men of the church, one must rule them all - the pope.

The authoritarian headship proponents like to emphasize those verses telling women to "submit" to their husbands, but almost always forget the directive that everyone should submit to each other - all men and all women. Elsewhere he described that idea as considering others better than yourself, or in other words, respect for others and humility about yourself. When Paul described what the "headship" relationship of a husband for a wife was like from the husbands point of view, he said, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." That is not about lording it over ones wife or rulership or authority or power. We know very well that Christ gave up everything and humbled himself and sacrificed himself, even unto death, for his bride. He came to serve, not to be served. And in the iconic and poignant object lesson with his disciples that we continue to practice, he performed the lowest of low servant jobs - washing their feet. Husbands are to do just as Jesus did for their own wives.

[jasd]

QR frame:

>>problem for a woman to be ordained?<<

Bears repeating: Saint your women pastors and leave the Frats their ‘ordinations’ – seems they’ve got their hearts tightly knit to ordination as their own bailiwick. Reminds me of a story:

A plantation had problems with a family of monkeys - no end of nuisance. A native suggested that holes be cut into coconut shells - small enough for a monkey to insert his hand. Done. The shells were then filled with sweets and tied to anchors of sort; whereupon, the monkeys, smelling the delights within the shells,put their hands in to delve for the sweets – and upon filling their hands with sweets – were unable to withdraw them, as the holes were much to small for their filled fists. Monkeys, being what they are, would not release the sweets – even when they saw men approaching – and were caught refusing to let go of what they had grabbed...

Not saying anybody here’s a monkey. Just a flash and a clink of something collapsing in my memory banks – probably just early onslaught.

>>Prophets don't ask for a job, seek a degree, or expect handouts.<<

On the other hand, most of the churches I’ve entered – were congregants mostly of women, the men scarce as hen’s teeth. It was to these women that the appeals for monie$ were made…

>>This was the example of EGW, with her husband James.<<

I’ve, upon occasion, read that the Whites yearly earnings were in the neighborhood of - a quarter-million dollar$ - adjusted for inflation - (well, until the later years of course when too many creditors were taken on). I’m sure that everyone would agree that that ain not chicken feed.

>>the head of woman is man<<

And there is a validating text to confirm that the familial or social aspects re a man and a woman traveled into the [collective] service of the Lord, which body is the church…?

Din’t Saint Paul write something ‘bout – the toe bones connected to the foot bones, the foot bones connected to the ankle bone, the ankle bone to the shin bone, the shin bone to the knee bone, etc? And none could boast agin t’other – they’s all being parts of the whole – the feeble the most necessary…

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.

Funny, the things that are directly stated and yet ignored – and the things that are easily parsed as non-relevant embraced as holy-believism…

>>or Apollos, and making a big deal out of that.<<

Apollos?—ain not him the guy whom Priscilla taught?

[Alchemy]

But what the Bible means by that and what the Catholic says it means are separated by a vast chasm of difference, polar opposites actually. And what I am saying is that much of what I hear from the anti-WO, anti-WOPE, anti-women in ministry camp is lockstep with how the Catholic Church interprets the concept of headship. For the Catholic Church it is about authority and power and submission to that power and authority. That concept of submission is consequently quite distorted in that interpretation, because it is seen in relationship to authority. And they took it well beyond the husband/wife relationship to the relationship of all men in the church with all women. Because it is about authority and rulership that naturally engenders a hierarchy so that even among the men of the church, one must rule them all - the pope.

The authoritarian headship proponents like to emphasize those verses telling women to "submit" to their husbands, but almost always forget the directive that everyone should submit to each other - all men and all women. Elsewhere he described that idea as considering others better than yourself, or in other words, respect for others and humility about yourself. When Paul described what the "headship" relationship of a husband for a wife was like from the husbands point of view, he said, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." That is not about lording it over ones wife or rulership or authority or power. We know very well that Christ gave up everything and humbled himself and sacrificed himself, even unto death, for his bride. He came to serve, not to be served. And in the iconic and poignant object lesson with his disciples that we continue to practice, he performed the lowest of low servant jobs - washing their feet. Husbands are to do just as Jesus did for their own wives.

First of all; I am not against WO. I believe the Bible and SOP teach that women can be ordained to certain ministries.

Second of all; I am not against women in ministry.

You see, this whole WOPE thing has never had a cause or a reason for its existence, so they fabricate one by falsely accusing those who stand on the Bible position as being against women in ministry. There isn't any truth in this charge.

Thirdly; I am not against WOPE, the Bible is. Male "headship" is Biblical, female "headship" is not Biblical.

[Jeannieb43]

IMHO, being an ordained pastor of a congregation constitutes the greatest *service* occupation available. A true pastor is a shepherd of the flock, who leads but does not control his/her members. Service here can be compared to serving one's partner in the ordinance of humility. We must all be in a servile position toward each other, and the greatest servant of us all should be the pastor.

[CoAspen]

The pastors that I know would totally agree with you!

[Gibs]

As long as they preach and teach according to His Word,

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Then it is fine and I could be edified and part of it.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[shelly]

I forgot about this thread. However, the responses were what I thought they would be. Ignore the practice of God (putting a woman in position of authority over men) and quote Paul.Deborah was not just a prophet, she was a judge. She was the authority in the nation. While not common, God did call a married woman to rule over his people. But we want to ignore the actions of God an misquote Paul. Paul is speaking of the relationship between a man and his wife but some still want to argue that he is speaking in general. Why would men in general have authority over women in general? That makes no sense. While I believe that their is a higharchy involved in a marriage there is no such idea presented in the bible that women in general should be in submission to men in general.

[debbym]

Quote:

Poster: shelly

Subject: Re: What about Deborah?

I forgot about this thread. However, the responses were what I thought they would be. Ignore the practice of God (putting a woman in position of authority over men) and quote Paul.Deborah was not just a prophet, she was a judge. She was the authority in the nation. While not common, God did call a married woman to rule over his people. But we want to ignore the actions of God an misquote Paul. Paul is speaking of the relationship between a man and his wife but some still want to argue that he is speaking in general. Why would men in general have authority over women in general? That makes no sense. While I believe that their is a higharchy involved in a marriage there is no such idea presented in the bible that women in general should be in submission to men in general.

i see the practicality of this position. there is a gentlemen in my area who is SDA and pastoral student. and he is very hot on this idea of male headship. and interprets things people say with an eye to whether they are pro male headship or not.

i feel this extra twinkle in his eye, and i wonder if i am just not lining up, and revealing that i am in rebellion to this concept, by being myself. I can see in families there especially needs to be peace and harmony. Constant fighting is stressful and interrupts child development, and interferes with contentment and happiness of the home.

but it brings me no special peace and wisdom or joy to be in submission to another woman's husband, whether i am in church or at the bank or in the grocery store or at the doctors office. and i don't really think they need that from me either.

i simply remain respectful for everyone.

this guy at church could not even bear for men and women to pray together at prayer meeting. hmmmm

thins that make ya go hm....

and oooh my birth name is Deborah....

debbym

[Johann]

“Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time” (Judges 4:4).

The judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd [pastor] My people” (1 Chronicles 17:6. NKJV).

Do we take the words of Scripture seriously?

[debbym]

Quote:

“Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time” (Judges 4:4).

The judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd [pastor] My people” (1 Chronicles 17:6. NKJV).

Do we take the words of Scripture seriously?

in those times there were schools of the prophets established, and anyone who explained the will of God was called a prophet. Like when King saul prophesied.

Lets take these words of scripture seriously.

Many people today may exercise the gift of prophesy, but are not considered prophets as Isaiah or Samuel.

God empoweres people to do whatever he calls them to do, regardless of age or gender.

[ClubV12]

"Deborah rebuked Barak for letting her lead in battle..."

So your saying no women in combat? Well that opens a whole new can of worms right there. :)

[olger]

Some thoughts regarding Deborah.

Deborah:

• Passing on a message from God (as He has given it, without expansion, explanation, or application) is not seen as exercising leadership authority.

• Judges were raised up to deal with national defense Judges (2:16), but they had a moral as well as a military function, namely to preserve internal holiness that prevented external attack (2-17-19). The latter role was more prophetic than judicial. They were not agents of a centralized government (Gideon refused to found a royal dynasty, on the ground of divine rule (Judges 8:22-23). Among them is Deborah who thus judged Israel. Three facts about her are stated:

• She was a wife of Lapidoth, she was a prophetess, and she settled disputes. She was able to bring an inspired word of wisdom or knowledge to bear on each case.

• Unlike other judges, she did not lead when invasion threatened, but delegated (or more accurately, the Lord delegated through her) this task to the man Barak. He, with less than masculine courage or chivalry, insisted on taking her into battle, ensuring his forfeiture of the honor of victory (Judges 4:6-9).

• Her triumphal song praised the Lord that the princes (ruling men) took “the lead,” showing that her attitude was maternal rather than matriarchal. She was no Joan of Arc, in spite of the apparent shortage of strong men.

• The entire book of judges is the sad portrayal of confused nation with each person doing that which is right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:24).

Rejoice always,

Gerry²

[doug yowell]

&#149; The entire book of judges is the sad portrayal of confused nation with each person doing that which is right in their own eyes&#148; (Judges 21:24).

Rejoice always,

Gerry²

Unlike the church today!

[olger]

Um...yeah.

[doug yowell]

But what the Bible means by that and what the Catholic says it means are separated by a vast chasm of difference, polar opposites actually.

[doug yowell]

One might note the description of EGW regarding Deborah's calling.

"...She was known as a prophetess, and in the absence of the usual magistrates, the people sought to her for counsel and judgment." (ST 6/16/1881)

Due to the "absence of the usual (male) magistrates" Deborah was required to expand her prophetic duties to include the civil magisterium, according to a later prophetess.This tends to lend support to the idea that desperate times call for desperate measures. Deborah was the lone exception to the patriarchal rule in Israel's 1500+ year history.A great(godly) woman in the era of unmanly(ungodly)men.