Something that we ALL need to have a little "primer" on. And, don't forget...God intended this information to dictate our day to day lives not only in Church, but with our spouses and day to day living...
The Role of Women in the Church
Is it just plainly God’s role for women?
What is a Woman?................................................................... 11-11
Sound Familiar?....................................................................... 12-13
The Demons………………………………………………………………………… 14-17
Biblical Teachings……………………………………………………………….. 18-20
The Role of Women in the Church………………………………………. 21-43
A Woman’s Inferiority?........................................................... 44-45
The Role of Women in the Church
Is it just plainly God’s role for women?
This requested report by E ric XXXXXXX, M.D. is going to make many angry. So be it. If one can’t handle the truth, then they should pray to God for his guidance through Jesus our savior-not to argue with me for I am inconsequential in the realm of this discussion.
This “report” is not of the classic form as we might have been taught in school and probably because, there were no computers and/or the internet way back then. Because one can find information on so many subjects through the World Wide Web, it’s almost plagiarism to write on any subject thinking that these are our thoughts alone when it has been duplicated so many times before. So, the idea of this “report” is to take articles and studies that are pre-existing and to tie them together with my own thoughts, life experiences and Biblical foundation.
This report is not about being popular or quick “sound bites” of information that are politically correct. If you think that you can skim through this, you are sadly mistaken. This will take study and thought along with independent research. If you don’t have the time, please don’t bother with this for you just plain and simple; don’t care enough to know God’s thoughts on this.
This report is prefaced by a partial opinion piece of mine that I wrote for a different audience and an article by Marsha West (gasp! a woman). In Marsha’s article we find that most have predefined opinions on how things should be that have absolutely no Scriptural basis and in fact, is really a new Godless religion being incorporated into our churches ever so slowly and ever so purposefully by sinister beings that are purposefully attempting to circumvent God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit by pretending to be what they are not.
We are fighting a nefarious movement to transform our God into an egalitarian God thusly, using some words from the Bible, creating a world church via the United Nations “of self” (think Oprah) as opposed to “of God” (think Bible). The movements goes back many centuries, but has promulgated itself of late and has only recently, in the last 6 decades-give or take a few decades, have shown its ugly purpose and desires with wild abandon.
A brief synopsis of what I wrote for a different audience showing what we are truly encountering from the evil forces that we encounter daily:
“…It all started about 50 years ago give or take a few decades. Earlier, much earlier if you know the true history of the Illuminati and other powerful groups such as the bankers working in cahoots with common goals. But, the real push was about fifty years ago in adhesion with the popular feminist movement that only disseminates lies, false propaganda, half truths and misandry, while they use the homosexuals and in particular the male homosexual movement temporarily, for their ultimate goal is the elimination of the male gender or perhaps “zoo samples” just in case…the male species may be needed for some biological or medical need in the future that is unknown today. Don’t believe me? Read the MOST READ article on the internet, BAR NONE: The S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto as written by Valerie Solanas.
There are many reasons for what’s going on and why, but what has nailed the lid to the coffin shut was the elimination of God from our history, schools and culture. With this in conjunction with divorce laws, over the scores of years, one-half generation at a time, we have seen the destruction of the family which is God’s law(s), with the primary goal of booting out the one person that God set up to be the head of the family as God did with Jesus as the head of the Church. The Father has effectively been removed from the family wherein he historically led, protected and fed that family and in its place, the government has all too eagerly, taken over. So, with the elimination of the Father, women the more malleable creature (think the serpent and Eve), turned to the ever so helpful government for protection and enforcement of monetary gains with no effort of her own by using children as disposable pawns in divorce actions along with false accusation to obtain orders of protection (restraining orders) to boot the Father out of his family and if that does not work, more sinister accusations such as child abuse or sexual abuse…including the work force by governmental interaction and laws that require no sacrifice nor longevity for increased skills in not only the private sector, but the ever growing governmental spectra.
Once the Father (including the Fathers in intact families) were eliminated and/or scared into submission to the ever so powerful, all encroaching force of the Godless government, the plan was set to accelerate to the snowball effect that is happening to all of us today. If you embrace Godless communism, socialism, protectionism and government force for just the right to live and breathe as long as you are a productive member of this Godless society, keep doing nothing. Your desires are being realized…
E ric Ericson”
Please, as you read through the various quotes, my words and articles, remember that number one is to pray for guidance and number two will be to KISS (keep it simple, stupid) for I make no apologies for God’s words, wisdom and his natural design or plan(s) for mankind.
To help set the tone of “The Role of Women in the Church,” we will proceed with this article by Marsha West:
A NEW RELIGION MASQUERADING AS CHRISTIANITY
By Marsha West
July 3, 2009
When I was a liberal I loved mocking the Bible. I'd get giddy arguing with conservatives over Bible stories that to me were ludicrous. One example is the biblical account of Moses parting the Red Sea to help the Israelites escape Pharaoh’s pursuing army. Boy did I scoff at that one! I categorized Christians who bought into the miraculous signs and wonders in the Bible as “unenlightened twits.”
My Christian friend who set me straight on abortion (part one) challenged me to read “Mere Christianity” by Oxford don C. S. Lewis. The book is a classic of Christian apologetics written in the 1940s. I knew it would be hard reading, nevertheless I accepted the challenge. It wasn’t exactly a page turner but I managed to get through it. Reading “Mere Christianity” opened my eyes to what the Christian faith is all about.
“Mere Christianity never flinches as it sets out a rational basis for Christianity and builds an edifice of compassionate morality atop this foundation. As Mr. Lewis clearly demonstrates, Christianity is not a religion of flitting angels and blind faith, but of free will, an innate sense of justice and the grace of God.”
Reading Lewis’ book I came to understand what Christians should believe and why they should believe it. In my research I ran across a whole host of highly educated men and women, including brilliant scientists, who believed in the Bible, even to include the Exodus account of God dividing the sea. I also came to terms with the fact that a God powerful enough to create the sea could certainly “cause the Israelites to pass through” while He “made the waters to stand as a heap.” 
As I mentioned earlier (part one) liberals prefer the term “progressive Christian” (PC) but a horse by any other name is still a horse. Most PCs don’t believe the Bible’s miracles are true. To them the Bible’s simply an ancient book of historical writings and moral precepts. The biblical accounts are largely legends, myths and fables. On the other hand, orthodox Christianity holds that God speaks to us through Scripture, hence it is the infallible, inerrant Word of God and is objective (absolute) truth.
PCs reject the notion that the Bible is infallible and inerrant but accept that it has some truth sprinkled throughout. When a PC comes to accept the orthodox view of Christianity, his or her worldview crumbles. (Mine did.)
Our postmodern culture stubbornly clings to a philosophical belief in moral relativism. Moral relativism holds that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. “Postmodernism, in an evident inconsistency, rejects some beliefs. It absolutely denies the existence of a source of truth, morality, and intelligibility distinct from man.” 
When I was a liberal and someone disagreed with me on something, I’d spout things like, “That may be true for you but not for me!” In other words, end of discussion! Back then my truth was gleaned mostly from personal experience. I never went to the Bible to find God’s truth. Liberals never do!
Liberal’s worldview is incompatible with the biblical worldview. So in order to create their own reality (their own form of Christianity) they must ignore the rules of biblical hermeneutics. Hence the Bible becomes a politically correct, non-judgmental, all-inclusive, “chicken soup for the soul” handbook for pseudo Christians. And that, my friends, is their aim. Here’s cold hard fact: most PCs align themselves with the popular culture’s view of morality, social issues, psychology, politics, and whatnot. They do not cotton to a God who’s inflexible, nor do they accept that in the future He will judge all mankind and that those who reject Jesus Christ will spend eternity in Hell. No way, they say! All of mankind will ultimately be saved through Jesus even if they reject Him as their Savior in this life. What happens when Christians disobey the rules? Their designer God understands how hard life is, thus he/she will look the other way while human beings sin their brains out. He/she is a God who loves ya, baby!
Is any of this in the Bible? No! But in order to make the God of the Bible more acceptable to the popular culture, liberals must reinvent the wheel. To accomplish this they have to undermine Church doctrine. So doctrine is tinkered with, intentionally misrepresented, or scrapped altogether! What gets scrapped includes some of the essential doctrines of the faith for which the martyrs shed their blood!
And yet the Body of Christ has done little or nothing to stop liberals and cult leaders from taking over entire denominations. These men and women are false teachers! Usurpers! Heretics! Liars! Fakes!
The early church had to deal with this sort of thing, too:
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1)
Who supports the churches and ministries of false teachers? Professing Christians! So-called believers fill the pews of apostate churches—they tithe—pat false te teachers on the back—sell and purchase their books, music, and CDs—show up up at their conferences, lectures and rallies. In the political arena the Christian Right works along side false teachers who “bring in damnable heresies” to form alliances in the battle for our country. Here’s the problem: working with apostates gives them credibility. I admit it’s a dilemma. But is sleeping with the enemy really the way to go? Apparently some think so.
Returning to the Barna Report (part one) the survey purports that liberals are:
“[F]ar less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
• their religious faith is veery important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives);
• a person cannot earn theirr way into Heaven by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%);
• their faith is becoming ann increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%);
• the church they currentlyy attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%);
• their primary purpose in liife is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%);
• Jesus Christ did not committ sins during His time on earth (33% vs. 55%).” 
What this tells me is that many liberals are befuddled. According to the survey 77% do not believe that Christ is the only way to heaven, yet Jesus clearly taught that the only way to the Father is through the Son. In His own words:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).
And 38% say their faith is not an important moral guide in their lives. Where does their moral guidance come from if not from the Bible? Let me guess—...Hollywood!
Only 37% of liberals who attend church feel that it helps them find direction — and they don't find church all that fulfilling. So 63% of liberal churchgoers find direction from a source other than the Bible? And what source would that be—...Oprah? Perhapss these Christians aren’t fulfilled because they’re not spirit-filled!
What strikes me as odd is that so many contemporary churches are all about me. Today’s churches are specially designed for the individual who hopes to find personal fulfillment. To have their felt needs met. To hear a preacher whose message (sermon) won’t offend anyone’s sensibilities. Some Christians have the attitude: “If the church I attend doesn’t meet my needs, I’ll find one that does.” Take that! And they’re out of there.
It’s hard to imagine contemporary churches not meeting someone’s felt needs. If you check on the Internet you’ll find churches boasting that their “campuses” are a place to “get connected” and “experience life with others.”
Church leaders worry about attrition so they offer all sorts of trick ponies to “get connected.” For example: edgy messages sprinkled with crass talk; loud music that could blow the doors off the building to attract the younger generation; drama skits; interpretive dance; labyrinth walks; special holiday programs (with live animals no less); career coaching; Christian counseling; a “Christian”12-step program (“Celebrate Recovery”); “chick-chat”; book studies (The Shack, which introduces readers to outright heresy); home fellowship groups; “Christian” yoga; “fitness well-being”; senior game day; single’s groups; teen and tween activities; book stores; sermon CDs; coffee bars; do-nuts—the works! You give liberals what they want, they will come.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying churches shouldn’t offer coffee and do-nuts or senior game day. Many marketing strategies tried by churches actually do help Christians grow spiritually. But a lot of what goes on in contemporary churches is off the wall! (See Recommended Links below.) In some instances irresponsible church leadership promotes practices that are outright occultic! (“Christian” yoga anyone?)
Yet even with all the programs churches offer to draw people in, Christians still bounce from church to church to church. Why? Their needs are not being met. News flash! Christianity is not about having your needs met! It’s not about making yourself a better you! It’s not about living your best life now! It’s not about becoming prosperous and pain-free! What Christianity is supposed to be about is loving God and getting sinners into heaven.
Barna’s survey really wasn’t all that surprising. The thing that stood out to me was that liberals are not the only ones who believe the Son of God sinned while on earth — some conservatives believe it too! This in spite of the fact that the gospel writers tell us that Jesus Christ led the perfect life. In other words, Jesus did not sin -- not even once! Any professing Christian who believes Jesus sinned does not understand the gospel.
“Those who would attack the Church and reject its gospel,” says Albert Mohler, “must direct their arrows at the most crucial truth claim of the New Testament and the disciples: That Jesus Christ, having suffered death on a cross, though sinless, having borne the sins of those He came to save, having been buried in a sealed and guarded grave, was raised by the power of God on the third day.” 
A subsequent Barna survey titled, “Most American Christians Do Not Believe that Satan or the Holy Spirit Exist”  revealed that:
“[M]ost Christians do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a living force, either. Overall, 38% strongly agreed and 20% agreed somewhat that the Holy Spirit is “a symbol of God’s power or presence but is not a living entity.” Just one-third of Christians disagreed that the Holy Spirit is not a living force (9% disagreed somewhat, 25% disagreed strongly) while 9% were not sure.”
I’m sure this will tick a lot of people off, thus I’ll receive email accusing me of being judgmental, however, “Christians” who think the Holy Spirit is a symbol of God’s power or presence aren’t saved. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity:
“He is fully God. He is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, has a will, and can speak. He is alive. He is a person. He is not particularly visible in the Bible because His ministry is to bear witness of Jesus (John 15:26).
“Some cults ? say thhat the Holy Spirit is nothing more than a force?. This is false. If the Holy Spirit weree merely a force, then He could not speak (Acts 13:2); He could not be grieved (Eph. 4:30); and He would not have a will (1 Cor. 12:11).
“The truth is that the Holy Spirit is a person the same as the Father and the Son are within the Trinity.” 
What Barna’s surveys show is that although liberals profess Christ many of them are not born-again Christians. How do I know this? God’s laws are written on the hearts of His people. Sooner or later the Lord will take center stage in the life of the person with a regenerate heart. Sheep listen for the shepherd’s voice and follow him:
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:27-28).
Sadly, today’s churches are full of goats that are choking out the sheep. Rest assured, goats will not reside in Heaven:
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Mat. 25:31-34).
The early Church stood out in stark contrast to a culture steeped in immorality, cruelty, violence, and death. Christianity became the dominant faith, not because followers of Jesus Christ blended in with Rome’s immoral, self-indulgent, me-centered culture, but because their focus was on community. Christians valued the family. They looked after the sick, the needy and the elderly. They also opposed abortion and infanticide.
Two thousand years ago Christians pursued virtue and goodness. In a word, holiness. Why was holiness important to them?
“And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God” (Exodus 3:5-6).
When you draw near to God, remember that you’re on holy ground.
For those who have been masquerading as Christians consider taking Jesus’ advice:
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).
What is truth? Truth is a person -- Jesus Christ! His very words are contained in the pages of Holy Scripture. The Christians must take Christ’s words seriously! Reading the Bible is important because it contains God’s roadmap for Christian living. Glancing at it every once in a while doesn’t cut it. God’s people must read it regularly as it is our armor against the forces of evil. And don’t pick and choose the verses that speak to your heart, make it your mission to read through the entire Bible and to thoroughly study it. How else will you become a mature believer that’s adequately equipped to defend your faith?
Our Lord dubbed His followers the salt of the earth:
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Mat. 5:13).
This may sound harsh but it’s pretty obvious that the Body of Christ has lost its savor. While the lukewarm Church sat idly by, truth was trampled and countless ungodly influences inserted itself into Western Civilization. Both Protestants and Roman Catholics turned away when their Savior was sent packing. Because believers chose to mind their own business, America’s on a slope so slippery we may never be able to climb back up again. Who would have thought we’d find ourselves on the road to European-style socialism? Is this what most Americans want? I doubt it, but it’s being pushed down our throats whether we like it or not — and it’s happingg very quickly. Better wake up America!
My generation never dreamed that our Judeo-Christian values would be openly mocked and ridiculed by Hollywood and the media. Anyone who opposes the Left’s radical social agenda is accused of spreading hate. Evangelicals are demonized and called "intolerant fundamentalists” when nothing could be further from the truth! If something isn’t done to stop the war on truth, evil will continue to thrive and civilization as we know it will perish.
The good news is that some men and women of God are speaking out against the apostate Church -- and they’ve got some harsh words for pseudo Christians. In a recent sermon, Ten Indictments Against the Modern Church, Paul Washer declared:
“There is a terrible malady upon you and judgment is coming.”
Yes, judgment is coming. For this reason true followers of Jesus Christ must make God’s invisible Kingdom visible to the unsaved — before it’s too late. For part one click below.
Click here for part -----> 1.
The Role of Women in the Church
Is it just plainly God’s role for women?
What is a woman?
Woman, a Biblical definition:
Woman was "taken out of man" (Gen. 2:23), and therefore the man has the preeminence. "The head of the woman is the man;" but yet honour is to be shown to the wife, "as unto the weaker vessel" (1 Cor. 11:3, 8, 9; 1 Pet. 3:7).
Several women are mentioned in Scripture as having been endowed with prophetic gifts, as Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4, 5), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), Noadiah (Neh. 6:14), Anna (Luke 2:36, 37), and the daughters of Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8, 9).
Women are forbidden to teach publicly (1 Cor. 14:34, 35; 1 Tim. 2:11, 12).
Among the Hebrews it devolved upon women to prepare the meals for the household (Gen. 18:6; 2 Sam. 13:8), to attend to the work of spinning (Ex. 35:26; Prov. 31:19), and making clothes (1 Sam. 2:19; Prov. 31:21), to bring water from the well (Gen. 24:15; 1 Sam. 9:11), and to care for the flocks (Gen. 29:6; Ex. 2:16).
The word "woman," as used in Matt. 15:28, John 2:4 and 20:13, 15, implies tenderness and courtesy and not disrespect. Only where revelation is known has woman her due place of honour assigned to her.
Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
Th role of Women in the Church
Is it just plainly God’s role for women?
Mom! It is you.
I haven’t seen you in years. How’s your job?
Still full of vim and vinegar, I see.
Here’s some more drama for ya. Have fun!
Unto the woman he said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.
And unto Adam he said,
Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,
and hast eaten of the tree,
of which I commanded thee, saying,
Thou shalt not eat of it:
cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
And Mom, you should see what Paul says about this. God sure has some funny ideas about how to run his world. He even talks about love, as if men and women are not supposed to be competitors.
Yes, I know…you are busy. I hope to be able to talk more…when time allows.
Your always last “choice” with the exception,
My Sister that you sent off to “fetus heaven,”
The Role of Women in the Church
Is it just plainly God’s role for women?
I have alluded to the two primary demons in charge of our churches as appointed by Satan that embrace worldly thoughts as opposed to God’s. This primer will help point up who these demons are, i.e. feminism and homosexual activists that have forbid Scripture over their wants and desires in too many of God’s churches that now have become mainstream as opposed to the small number of churches that teach scripture as God has ordained.
HOW TO STOP HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISM IN THE EPOSCOPAL CHURCH
David R. Usher
July 2, 2006
Two years after Goodridge legalized “same-sex” marriage in Massachusetts, courts across America have consistently been ruling in favor of heterosexual marriage. It is truly astonishing that courts would be more moral than the American Episcopal and Congregational Churches. There are two reasons why this is happening.
First: churches have been invaded by experienced feminist gay and lesbian activists, who twenty years ago realized that it was necessary to take over churches to melt moral yardsticks down to the level of feminism. These activists have been successful for one reason: the nice lay people who sit on Church boards sit down and shut up when somebody calls them an intolerant bigot. Gay blessings and trans-gendered scriptural interpretations have been rammed down the throats of churchgoers, few of whom agree with it, but none who know how to stand up to trained activists who know how to play hardball power politics.
Second: Courts are learning why gay marriage is unconstitutional. On the heels of the Goodridge decision, which forced gay marriage on the Massachusetts plebiscite, I published an article titled “Why Gay Marriage Is Unconstitutional.” I did not realize the importance of this piece until meeting with Peter Sprigg, of Family Research Council, who was stunned that the principles set forth in the article had not been realized in time to stop Goodridge. In the article, I set forth the argument that is being applied by organizations defending heterosexual marriage. Correspondingly, the “good guys” have won every court case since Goodridge, even in the infamous California Ninth Circuit Court.
The thesis set forth in my previous piece is this: Marriage is the first, and the greatest guarantor of human equality in history. It is the only civil rights institution that erases all natural, physical, social, economic, and culturally-imposed disparities between men and women. It is heterosexual marriage which forms the whole cloth of the human race.
Heterosexual marriage prevents segregation along gender lines. Marriage is the only civil rights institution that creates the necessary social institution of fatherhood. It is the only moral institution that most-often prevents poverty for women and children. Heterosexual marriage does not affect either sex adversely because it is wholly inclusive of both sexes.
Conversely, same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it exaggerates the physical, social, cultural, and economic differences between men and women. Radical feminists have wanted same-sex marriage all along to entirely take over the institutions of marriage and family. We can predict a very dangerous free-fall of civil society if we allow this to happen.
We have not yet realized that “no-fault divorce” was merely sales language for the successful feminist campaign to secede from heterosexual marriage. Now this goal is largely is accomplished, feminists are executing phase two: the forced segregation of marriage to give feminists all the rights and men all the responsibilities.
Courts are re-finding their moral footings, and in many cases outdoing some Churches. Now it is time for us to help the Episcopal and Congregational churches regain solid footings in the ecclesiastical realm.
Church leaders who even consider gay “blessings,” advocate for gay marriage, or are gay or lesbian themselves, have perverted their moral duty as teachers of scripture. Since leaders of the Episcopal and Congregational Churches have demonstrated an inability to follow the simplest of Biblical principles, it is the Christian duty of church members to lead them back to scripture in a [censored] but brotherly way.
Below is a very effective tool I have used successfully that requires only one person to bring about the rejection of feminists who have taken over your church, or a church in your community.
If you print the below as a single-page hand-out and leaflet the automobiles on your church parking lot during services, the rest will take place naturally in just a few months.
The cleansing of the local churches will naturally remove activists at the national level, and bring about a moral restoration of the Episcopalian and Congregational churches. With some modifications, this will also work with Reform Jewish Congregations, some of which have become centers for predatory lesbian-feminist activism.
To All Members of [your] Church:
1. [Use sentences that apply] [Name] has strongly advocated same-sex marriage in our church. Scriptures and Psalms have been replaced with paraphrased equivalents modified to substitute gay and feminist agenda for biblical meaning. [He/She] has strongly pursued the Board and members of this church, and received permission to quietly perform anti-biblical homosexual ceremonies in this house of the Lord.
2. [Name] has helped certain "radical social revisionists" assume tight control of the committees governing church activities. Those in our community who stand for wholesome values are not permitted to speak freely about the take-over of this church, while those who believe in radical values such as same-sex marriage and radical feminism are invited to "educate" this church on crucial social issues regarding our community and this nation.
3. There is no biblical passage that supports same-sex marriage. [Name] has transmogrified or discounted liturgical discussion of all biblical passages which speak directly against this, and instead taught that the bible is an instrument comprised of outdated "taboos" which may be selectively ignored or revised according to perverse secular political, social and sexual mores. Certainly, we do not stone people for being homosexual. But lacking repentance, we are still sinners unto death. This doesn't lay grounds for suggesting that sins should now be godly.
4. There are several passages in the Bible directing us to avoid homosexuality. There are no passages that teach in favor of it either directly or indirectly.
5. [Name] has lead us down a path of paganism as the spiritual leader of this church. We are warned in the Bible to avoid following anyone who would lead us down this path.
6. This is the house of the Lord. It is important for us to protect the moral centerpiece of our community and to take reasonable efforts to stop anyone who would teach this church that sin is something that should be fortified under the bible.
7. Let us not confuse "tolerance" with the establishment of worship of anti-christian values. Let us not place on the altar what we would never teach in our homes.
8. This is our community. What we permit our church to do establishes those actions that as acceptable community standards. As citizens and parents we have done everything in our effort to stop those who might legalize homosexual marriage, or teach our school children that homosexuality is a wholesome lifestyle they should adopt. Yet, this is what [Name] is doing within the church, and we have not had the courage to prevent it.
9. I have done the best I can as a Christian to fulfill my Christian duty to help [Name] return to the scripture for the benefit of this church and our community.
10. Let us expect [Name] to withdraw [his or her] agenda for homosexual marriage. Let us suggest that [he or she] take leave for spiritual rebirth. Let us be [censored] in this, for we need spiritual leadership from our [Title]. Until [Name] recants and has experienced a sincere spiritual healing, let us stay in our homes. We shall study the Bible peacefully, that we might recommit to a healthy moral and spiritual life, and pray for a healing of the ministry of this church.
Suggested family home bible studies for prayer and meditation seeking moral rebirth of ourselves and our church during this time for healing:
Leviticus 20:13, Proverbs 14:2-10, Proverbs 19:1-8, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 2 Timothy 3:3-9, Matthew 6:7-16, Matthew 12:18-38, Matthew 18:15, Galatians 5:18-25, 1 Timothy 1:9-15, Genesis 6:5-13, John 7:6-7, Luke 20:41, 1 Corinthians 7:25-39, 1 Peter 5:1-11, 1 John, Romans 1:24-28, Ephesians 4:13-17, Colossians 3:1-9, Revelations 22:14-19, Jude 1:13-19, Titus 1:16, Titus 2:1-8, Deuteronomy 30:10-16, Romans 7:14-23, Luke 17:23-29, Proverbs 4:24-27, Proverbs 5:1-6, Proverbs 8:4-13, Proverbs 12:4-11, Acts 20:27-33, 1 Timothy 6:9, Mark 4:18-24; Matthew 15:12-20, Leviticus 5:3-9, Matthew 7:15-22, and Ephesians 6:10-18
The Role of Women in the Church
Is it just plainly God’s role for women?
Is God infallible? Is the Bible the word of God? If you think yes and then no, stop reading and seek help from your Pastor.
Since God is perfect in every way, who are we to question anything that God has given us?
Female Bible scholars seem to have a “few problems” in God’s laws, words and commands. Why? Just who are these “scholars” that question God as they supposedly profess to believe in God? Are they Christians (of course not)? Are they possessed by demons since they know the truth and yet recant God’s words (more than likely)?
Ten Biblical Teachings Women Love to Hate
A feminist hit list
By Jeffery L. Sheler
Posted January 25, 2008
Are the Bible's teachings on women to be taken literally? Or should they be interpreted, and perhaps discounted, as vestiges of an ancient patriarchal culture? U.S. News asked a dozen biblical scholars, all female, to identify passages they consider to be the most problematic for modern American women. Here are the 10 most frequently cited.
Eve's punishment for eating the forbidden fruit: "In pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
In the Ten Commandments, the wife as property: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."
A test for women suspected of adultery: "If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him...and there is no witness against her since she was not caught in the act...then the man shall bring his wife to the priest...[who] shall make her take an oath, saying, 'If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be immune to this water of bitterness'... When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself...[the water] shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children."
A rape victim's rights, Old Testament style: "If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall...stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help...and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife." [If the woman is not engaged] "the man who lay with her shall give 50 shekels of silver to the young woman's father, and she shall become his wife."
The apostle Paul on husbands and wives: "Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church."
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Paul on women's conduct in church: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak... And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home."
1 Timothy 2:13-15
Paul on why women should be silent in church: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided [she] continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."
Paul on how to instruct women: "Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited."
1 Peter 3:1-7
The apostle Peter on women's conduct and status: "Wives...do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit... It was in this way long ago that the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by accepting the authority of their husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord."
The 144,000 who will be chosen at the Second Coming: "Then I looked, and there was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion! And with him were 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads...It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins."
Where in the above is God’s plan for, “The Role of Women in the Church?” Don’t be surprised. There is none. Women do not have a role in the Church as leaders per se, but God does have a plan and a role for women.
One of God’s plans for women is for women to ask their husbands if they did not understand something in church-thusly women are expected to go to church and, to be silent in church. As any good leader and one appointed by God himself (Jesus is head of the church. Man is head of the family.), he would lovingly find the answer if he did not know that answer. It’s just what leaders do.
If you are a woman and thinking…that that is fine, but the man had better well do as the Bible teaches too…you are of this world. There is absolutely no “bargaining” with God. God has also given you the ONLY reasons for a divorce (a different subject matter that I am not going to get into here). But, just because this does not sound fair, does not mean it is not fair…in God’s eyes, rules, laws, commands and/or words. Again, who are we to question God?
The Role of Women in the Church
Is it just plainly God’s role for women?
Here is a scholary, thoroughly, definitive, researched rendition of two major viewpoints on this subject, but I believe the egalitarian viewpoint loses, hands down:
The Role of Women in the Church
D. Massimiliano Lorenzini
Two Major Views
Gender Distinctives from Creation
Gender Distinctives from the Fall
The Key NT Passages in the Gender Debate
Other New Testament Teaching
The Office of Deacon
Permissible Areas of Service for Women in the Church
Though not necessarily the most important issue, the role of women in the church may well be "the most controversial and sensitive issue within evangelicalism today."(1) Evangelicals are increasingly being faced with questions concerning the role of women in the church: Does the Bible permit women pastors? Can a woman teach men or exercise authority over men? For almost the entire span of church history the answer was generally and repeatedly no. The role of women in the church has historically been limited.(2) However, today there is a new movement which seeks to remove all limitations previously placed upon women.
Many today are aggressively promoting the idea that women are fully equal with men without distinction and are to have access to each and every position of ministry in the church. Many others are untaught and confused on the subject, not knowing the questions much less the answers. Some hold to a rigid traditionalism that places undue restrictions on women leaving men only to have any ministry in the church. Finally, others believe the Bible presents a vision that respects the gender distinctives of men and women resulting in some limitations on women in the church but at the same time releases women to fulfill their ministries not only in the home but also in appropriate ministries within the church. The aim of this paper is to set forth the two major views on the subject, present the biblical grounds for gender distinctions, present the Scriptural limitations for the offices of elder and deacon, and present options for appropriate avenues of ministry for women in the church.
Statement of Procedure
The amount of published material related to the issue of the role of women in the church is overwhelming. The following lengthy but insightful quotation from Craig Blomberg says it all.
Debates about the Bible's teaching on gender roles seem to continue endlessly. The literature that one must master to say anything credible grows in intimidating quantity: general works on men and women in antiquity; specific studies of the classical world, the Hellenistic period, the Old Testament and subsequent Jewish tradition, and the New Testament and constituent parts of Scripture; analyses of specific biblical texts, broader liberationist or feminist approaches, theologies of the Bible, of one Testament, or of one specific part of one Testament; commentaries; histories of Jewish and/or Christian interpretation of texts; church histories more generally; modern ecclesiastical debates; and contemporary social-scientific analysis!(3)
The one caveat to be added to Blomberg's observation is that one can and should say something "credible" concerning gender roles from an honest and clear exposition of the Scriptures which are sufficient and authoritative for all matters of faith and practice. Much contemporary scholarship has unduly complicated this issue by arriving at conclusions built upon faulty presuppositions which effectively take the discussion away from the testimony of Scripture. For example, Mary Hayter argues that the rationale behind male religious leadership in the Bible is circumstantial, or as she puts it--"culturally conditioned regulation which is not binding for the modern Church."(4) So the reasoning is all done at the human level rather than the divine. Rather than enter into that discussion, this paper will concentrate on interacting with the relevant biblical texts and those authors who share the same approach.(5)
Two Major Views
In the gender debate, there are two main positions among evangelical Christians. One position is the complementarian view, which is the non-feminist view. It is also referred to as the traditional or heirarchical view (mainly by opponents). The other position is known as the egalitarian view. It is also called evangelical feminism, biblical feminism, or biblical equality.
The complementarian view teaches that God created men and women as equals with distinctive gender-defined roles. The term complementarian was chosen in order to emphasize both the equality of the sexes and the complementary differences between men and women. This view teaches that God created men and women equally in His image so that they are fully equal in personhood, dignity, and worth (Gen 1:26-28). Complementarians further believe that all Christians--whether male or female--are baptized, Spirit-gifted, believer-priests and are full members of the body of Christ. They should, therefore, use their spiritual gifts to their fullest potential in ministry to others and grow into full spiritual maturity.
So much for equality. What do complementarians believe about the differences between men and women? They believe that God created men and women to be different and to fulfill distinct gender roles. God designed the man to be the husband, father, provider, protector, and leader. He is to be the loving head of the home and to provide godly leadership in the church. God designed the woman to be the wife, mother, nurturer, and helper. She is to submit to the man's leadership in church and home.
The correct view of the Bible's teaching on gender according to complementarians is one that holds both truths--equality and role differences. These truths are to be maintained in balanced tension as part of God's original intent prior to the fall into sin. Complementarians believe this view best represents the plain, straightforward teaching of Scripture on gender and that as such represents God's infallible truth and wise design for the good of His people and magnification of His glory.
The major organization representing the complementarian view is The Council for Biblical Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), founded in 1987. Its position paper is The Danvers Statement. CMBW publishes the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and maintains a web site at www.cbmw.org. Some popular complementarian authors are: H. Wayne House, R. Kent Hughes, George W. Knight, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, James Hurley, John MacArthur, Mary Kassian, Charles C. Ryrie, John M. Frame, Dorothy Patterson, R. Albert Mohler, J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, Gleason Archer, John Walvoord, and many others.
Egalitarians believe that God created man and woman fully equal and that true equality demands equal ministry opportunities in the church and equal marital roles in the home. They believe that equal-yet-different, as taught by complementarians, is a contradiction in terms. Egalitarians believe that men and women share mutual submission and responsibility in both marriage and the church. Leadership and teaching in the church are to be determined by spiritual giftedness and not by gender.
Egalitarians emphasize the Bible's statements concerning the equality of men and women (Gen. 1:26-28; Gal. 3:28) and believe that the Bible's statements on headship and submission have been seriously misinterpreted. They believe that simplistic, literal, traditional interpretations of the Bible misrepresents what the Bible teaches on gender. The further believe that male domination of women is the result of the entrance of sin, as recorded in Genesis 3.
The major organization representing the egalitarian position is Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) also founded in 1987. CBE defines itself as evangelical and began with women who had withdrawn from the Evangelical Women's Caucus (over disagreement with the apparent endorsement of lesbianism). CBE was formed as a national chapter of Men, Women, and God, International, an organization associated with John Stott's London Institute for Contemporary Christianity. The CBE position paper is Men, Women and Biblical Equality. CBE maintains a web site at www.cbeinternational.org. Among the egalitarians are: Stanley Grenz, Rebecca Groothius, Ruth Tucker, Craig S. Keener, Gordon Fee, Gilbert Bilezikian, Cornelius Plantiga Jr., F. F. Bruce, Anthony Campolo, D. Stuart Briscoe, Millard J. [censored], Kenneth S. Kantzer, Richard J. Mouw, Grant R. Osborne, Philip Barton Payne, William J. Hybels, Vernon Grounds, and many others.
Gender Distinctiveness from Creation
Since equality is affirmed by those on both sides of the gender debate, attention will be given to the distinctives between the sexes. The creation account, recorded in Genesis 1-3, of man and woman and their subsequent fall into sin provide the foundation for all biblical thinking about gender roles. An impressive number of distinctives may be gleaned from these opening chapters. When Jesus was questioned about male-centered divorce practices, He responded by affirming the truthfulness of the Genesis record and based His gender teachings on it (Matt 19:3-8). Stephen B. Clark explained:
Other New Testament writers, especially Paul, followed Jesus' lead. Most of the important passages on men-women roles in the New Testament refer back either explicitly or implicitly to the first three chapters of Genesis . . . .
It is not possible to understand the New Testament teaching on men and women without understanding how it is founded on the creation of Adam and Eve and on God's purpose as revealed in the creation of the human race.(6)
God Made Adam the Central Character
Everything said in Genesis 2:7-25, the detailed account of the creation of man and woman, revolved around the man. The spotlight was upon him and everything else, including the woman, plays a supporting role. The man received the generic name that is used to identify the entire race: Adam, or Man (2:5; see 1:26 and 5:2). The man is the one spoken to by God and the one who received divine revelation and instruction (2:16-17). God brought the animals to the man for naming (2:19-20). The woman was made from the man, not the man from the woman (2:22). The woman was also made for the man and was brought to him, not vice versa (2:18, 22). It was the man who commented on the woman's creation as a fitting counterpart and named her (2:23). From any viewpoint, the whole narrative is centered on the man's creation and provision by God.
God Created Adam First then Eve
Genesis chapter two seems to have been written to communicate the idea that Adam was created first to signal that the man has the responsibility to lead in his relationship with the woman. Correspondingly, Eve had the responsibility to follow Adam's leadership. Before Eve was formed, Adam existed in the garden to care for it, he received instruction from God, and he named the animals. The creation priority of man is not without significance. The New Testament provides a divinely inspired commentary on Genesis 2. The apostle Paul wrote, "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" (1 Tim 2:12-13; italics added).(7) Thus the New Testament uses Adam's prior creation to demonstrate God's design that men are to be the leaders and teachers in the church of God.
God Formed the Woman out of the Man
God made the man and the woman in very different ways. God formed the man out of the dust of the earth and breathed life into him (2:7). God formed the woman out of one of Adam's ribs (2:22). The woman's derivation from man demonstrates both equality in nature and role distinctions. This is known from the New Testaments use of Genesis 2:22. Paul concluded, based on Genesis 2:22, that "the head of woman is man" (1 Cor. 11:3) and "woman is the glory of man" (1 Cor. 11:7) because "man is not from woman, but woman from man" (1 Cor. 11:8). The doctrine of headship and submission finds its source in the creation account of man and woman in Genesis 2.
God Created the Woman for the Man
This point is particularly politically incorrect. Genesis 2:18 reads: "And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' " God declared that it was not good for man to be alone. Adam could not find a suitable companion among the animals (2:20), so God made him a "helper." This helper was not to be another man. God made Adam a helper comparable or suitable to him but not identical to him. The woman was made equal to Adam, yet different enough to complement him in a way nothing else can. If there are no distinctions between a man and a woman, then why wouldn't a man be a suitable partner for a man? Without identifying role distinctions between men and women, there is no real reason to oppose homosexuality.
God Gave Instructions to Adam
God commanded Adam not Eve to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:16-17). There is a hint of Adam's leadership in that God possibly commissioned Adam to instruct Eve about this command. Closely related is the fact that God gave Adam stewardship over the garden before the creation of Eve and he probably was responsible to explain that stewardship to Eve which included the restriction concerning the forbidden fruit.
Adam Exercised His God-Given Leadership in Naming Eve
Before the fall, Adam named his new companion "woman" (2:23) which is a generic name, not a personal name. After the fall, Adam named his wife "Eve" (3:20) which is a personal name. It is interesting to note that Adam's naming of God's creatures is closely related to his search for a suitable helper. It was during the naming of the animals that Adam realized there was not a suitable helper for him (2:20). It was also when he realized that the woman was a suitable helper that he named her (2:23). Adam's naming of the animals and of the woman was one of the means by which Adam exercised his rule over the creatures God had made according to God's mandate (1:26, 28).
Each of the preceding details occurred before the fall into sin and thus man's headship over woman is not part of the curse of sin. Egalitarians believe the "rulership of Adam over Eve resulted from the Fall and was therefore not a part of the original created order."(8) They attribute man's "rulership" to the prediction of Genesis 3:16b: "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." This, say the egalitarians, is an effect of the fall and does not reflect God's ideal order. The corollary to this interpretation is that redemption in Christ reverses this curse and reinstates the woman to "full equality" with the man. They reach this conclusion by either ignoring or neutralizing the creation details already outlined and by emphasizing the passages that teach essential equality (Gen 1:26-28; 2:23-24).
Gender Distinctives from the Fall
Both egalitarians and complementarians believe the Fall changed gender relations for the worse: egalitarians believing the Fall resulted in man's rulership and complementarians believing the Fall resulted in what is known as the battle of the sexes. However, complementarians believe that gender distinctions are also seen in the Fall and the events that immediately follow. Three of these are noted below.
First, it is significant that when the serpent sought to lead the human race into sin, he targeted Eve rather than Adam (Gen 3:1). Adam was the God-ordained head of the race and Eve was his helper. Perhaps recognizing that Eve was more susceptible to deception, the serpent pursued her. The woman entertained the serpent's suggestion and, rather than consulting with her husband, she rebelled against God's command and ate of the forbidden tree. She then offered it to her husband and he ate also. Thus the first couple reversed the God-designed roles and the woman led the man into sin and the man followed his wife into sin. German theologian Werner Neuer remarked, "The fall is therefore, not only the rebellion of mankind against God, but the setting aside of the divinely appointed order of male and female."(9) It is a most profound thought that the fall of the race was occasioned by a gender role reversal. Let no one think that gender roles is a trivial issue.
Second, after the Fall, God called out to Adam, not to Eve (Gen 3:9). Why is this? "Because, as the God-given head, Adam bore the primary responsibility to lead their partnership in a God-glorifying direction. This may explain why Satan addressed Eve, rather than Adam, to begin with."(10) Thomas Schreiner concurred with this view writing, "In Romans 5:12-19 Paul confirms this reading of the narrative, for the sin of the human race was traced to Adam, not to Eve. . . . Greater responsibility, however, is assigned to Adam as the leader of the first human couple."(11)
Third, as part of the curse that God decreed to Eve, He said, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen 3:16b). Mary A. Kassian identified this statement as an antithetical parallelism.(12) Kassian stated that "the contrast of the second part of the clause unlocks the meaning of the first part. We can conclude, therefore, from the type of Hebrew poetry used, that a woman's desire is in direct opposition to the husband's rule. The words desire and rule stand as antonyms to one another."(13) Another clue to the meaning of this verse is Genesis 4:7b which reads, "And its [sin's] desire is for you, but you should rule over it." The words desire and rule in Hebrew are identical in both verses. "Thus, the curse on the woman is that she would desire to conquer/devour/have her husband in the same way sin desired to have Cain. At the same time, the husband would attempt to rule/have dominion/ reign over his wife in the same way Cain was to rule over sin."(14)
So it is seen that the distinctions between men and women exist as part of God's original design from creation. The Fall has certainly complicated matters, but distinctions continue nonetheless. The teaching from Genesis is truly foundational to understanding the biblical view of man and woman which is that of male headship and female subordination. What follows is a brief overview of the New Testament teachings concerning the role of women in the church.
The Key NT Passages in the Gender Debate
A discussion of the New Testament teachings on the role of men and women in the family is beyond the scope of this paper. However, along with the Genesis teachings, they are foundational to the role of women in the church. The key New Testament passages that address the roles of husbands and wives are: 1 Peter 3:1-7; Ephesians 5:21-33; Colossians 3:18-19; 1 Corinthians 7:1-40; Titus 2:3-5; and 1 Timothy 3:4-5, 12. All of these passages affirm male headship and female subordination in the home. The role of women in the church is to reflect the role of women in the home. It should be noted that there are several key words in the gender debate: help/helper (Hebrew, ezer); be submissive (Greek, hypostasso); head (Greek, kephale); exercise authority (Greek, authenteo). Lack of space does not allow for a discussion of these key words. Suffice it to say that the traditional understanding of these words has been maintained by complementarians despite attempts by egalitarians to redefine them.(15)
Several passages in the New Testament specifically address the role of women in the church. These passages include: 1 Timothy 2:8-15; 1 Corinthians 14:33b-40; and 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. These passages will be discussed briefly. First, however, the teaching of Galatians 3:28 must be addressed. The text reads: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Egalitarians take Galatians 3:28 to be the magna carta for equality in the gender debate and interpret all other passages of Scripture in light of their interpretation of it. The fact that complementarians say that this passage exists in a context which deals specifically with the question of salvation does not bother egalitarians at all. They (egalitarians) believe that this verse is the clearest statement of Paul's own understanding of the role of women. "Egalitarians, therefore, assert that equality of soteriological position in Christ must receive an appropriate outworking in the practice of the church (and in society as well)."(16) However, complementarians insist that this verse teaches equal access to salvation for all who believe and that how men and women relate to each other after salvation is not the issue here.(17) The same Paul who wrote "there is neither male nor female" also wrote "the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church" (Eph 5:23).
1 Timothy 2:11-15
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. Nevertheless, she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Tim 2:11-15).
First Timothy 2:11-15 is the main battleground in the debate of the role of women in the church. Egalitarians claim that in writing the Pastoral Epistles, Paul did "not intend to establish a blueprint for church structure, but to deal with the circumstances that the church (and especially Paul's associate Timothy) faced in Ephesus. His advice concerning women was not triggered by questions arising in our day, but by the conduct in worship assemblies of the first-century church."(18) And thus goes the egalitarian neutralizing of Scriptures that limit the role of women in the church. Egalitarians maintain that Paul's teaching
F eminazi PIGS are crass...