Making a case for women in leadership

[SirSolaScriptura]

Our calling is irrevocable. It is determined by the Lord. Had Mary not consented she would have become inconsequential and another would have taken her place.

And Mary is not the mother of God. That’s Roman idolatry. She was the vessel through whom Jesus would come into the earth. Jesus was God in the Spirit, not the flesh.

“The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Melchizedek is a precursor of this grace:

“For this Melchizedek… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”

Jesus was clear:
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

I was quoting the sources that upheld the Consent of Mary. As for her being Mother of God, well God always existed, Christ always existed (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3), However, she did carry God Incarnate inside her and was His Mother in that she raised him, fed him, took care of Him and loved Him like a Mother.

It depends on what you mean by Mother, she was a Mother in every sense of word except that she had no hand in creating Jesus, for Jesus was not created, He has always existed with the Father and Holy Spirit.

 

[Aaron56]

I was quoting the sources that upheld the Consent of Mary. As for her being Mother of God, well God always existed, Christ always existed (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3), However, she did carry God Incarnate inside her and was His Mother in that she raised him, fed him, took care of Him and loved Him like a Mother.

It depends on what you mean by Mother, she was a Mother in every sense of word except that she had no hand in creating Jesus, for Jesus was not created, He has always existed with the Father and Holy Spirit.

Right. I was commenting on the quote.

The Roman church calls Mary the "mother of God". She and Joseph reared Him and watched over Him when He was a child, there is no doubt. But, since God is spirit, no part of her spirit was used to form Jesus. Jesus was her son in the flesh but He was the Son of God because of the Spirit of God within Him. Calling a person the mother of an eternal God is idolatry.

It's akin to calling a building a church, something the Romans also started, when church has always meant people who are called out by God.

 

[tyler87432f]

For whatever its worth.... the Greek text literally translates "a one-woman man". Polygamy wasn't common in Ephesus at the time, but divorce/remarriage/adultery/fornication were all very common. Polygamists would definitely be disqualified, but I'm guessing the instruction was speaking more towards:

-Adulterers

-Men who were keeping relations within marriage but divorcing and remarrying for non-biblical reasons

-Single guys who were "playing the field"

-Just any guy in general (married or single) who was known for seeking out the romantic attention of multiple females, even if he refrained from sexual contact.

I could be wrong of course, but "one woman man" does seem to me to refer more to heart attitude than marital status..... Paul himself was single, and he oversaw extensions austin much.

Yes i see that

 

[Karlon]

Everyone knows Pauls words on women pastors or rather a women speaking or teaching in the church and at face value this would seem pretty clear however the context of the verse has to do with the issues that was going on in the church at the time but what really got me thinking was this right here

Galatians 3:28 states that in Christ Jesus, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor male nor female, for all are one. This verse emphasizes the equality and unity of believers in Christ, transcending traditional social and cultural divisions. It highlights that these categories, while still present in human society,
are not determinants of value or significance within the Christian community and so this verse got me thinking if this is to be true then why do we take Pauls words at face value he would be contradicting the himself
unless of course he was speaking in regards to what was going on in the church at the time then it would make sense not to mention what about the women who he even baosted about who ministered to people such as Junia?

This one verse just doesn't make sense to me if indeed women are subhuman in the church and Jesus himself never forbid women of such a thing he never even addressed it
Would Jesus forbid the gospel being preached by a women?

Yes. God has put into every man & woman's heart & mind the proper desires that fit each person. 1st Timothy 2:11 teaches that women are to learn in public worship services in silence with all subjection. Titus 2:4 2nd's the motion or teaching. i believe women can teach young women & children in a designated room of the church. Priority in creation & the serpent's temptation are qualifications in this teaching.

 

[Blain]

Yes. God has put into every man & woman's heart & mind the proper desires that fit each person. 1st Timothy 2:11 teaches that women are to learn in public worship services in silence with all subjection. Titus 2:4 2nd's the motion or teaching. i believe women can teach young women & children in a designated room of the church. Priority in creation & the serpent's temptation are qualifications in this teaching.

The issue is that I have seen God use women in leadership in powerful ways even a miracle happened with this one women who was preaching so if this is all to be true and I am not saying it isn't why did God use them in such ways if it goes against scripture?

 

[lrs68]

The issue is that I have seen God use women in leadership in powerful ways even a miracle happened with this one women who was preaching so if this is all to be true and I am not saying it isn't why did God use them in such ways if it goes against scripture?

The Disciple\Apostle John, like Mary Magdalene was present during the Crucifixion of Yeshua. But it was to Mary Magdalene [only] the resurrected Yeshua chose to meet with first.

 

[Blain]

The Disciple\Apostle John, like Mary Magdalene was present during the Crucifixion of Yeshua. But it was to Mary Magdalene [only] the resurrected Yeshua chose to meet with first.

True and it is not the only instance where a women was proven to be a true disciple like when she washed his feet.
At face value scripture seems to speak of how women are basically secondd class compared to men but not just me but many have witnessed women being used by God in leadership so something doesn't add up to me

 

[Magenta]

Right. I was commenting on the quote.

The Roman church calls Mary the "mother of God". She and Joseph reared Him and watched over Him when He was a child, there is no doubt. But, since God is spirit, no part of her spirit was used to form Jesus. Jesus was her son in the flesh but He was the Son of God because of the Spirit of God within Him. Calling a person the mother of an eternal God is idolatry.

It's akin to calling a building a church, something the Romans also started, when church has always meant people who are called out by God.

The RCC also call Mary the queen of heaven, mother of us all, the second Eve, and a mediatrix.

Quite disturbing, really, how much they add to Scripture, and especially when one realizes that their only ex cathedra dogmas
are not even about Jesus! No, the two ex cathedra dogmas that are mandatory for all Catholics to believe are about Mary.

 

[Karlon]

The issue is that I have seen God use women in leadership in powerful ways even a miracle happened with this one women who was preaching so if this is all to be true and I am not saying it isn't why did God use them in such ways if it goes against scripture?

you would have to have proof it was God who used the women in this way. what evidence is there to support that? maybe it was just people doing their thing.

 

[lrs68]

True and it is not the only instance where a women was proven to be a true disciple like when she washed his feet.
At face value scripture seems to speak of how women are basically secondd class compared to men but not just me but many have witnessed women being used by God in leadership so something doesn't add up to me

The Bible, like many other manuscripts of that day, age, time in history also reflect the sociatal views of daily life. And in a period when women were viewed as less than we see God choose a woman to enter as a human. We see God in human form promoting women as equal Disciples. We see God changing the perception between male and female and saying that neither exists in Heaven. Women tended to believe in Jesus before men did and God was willing to use those who devoted themselves to Him.

Oddly enough, we read about all of the men becoming Martyrs other than John. That means it's possible that women had a longer ministry because they appear to have died in old age.

 

[Snackersmom]

True and it is not the only instance where a women was proven to be a true disciple like when she washed his feet.
At face value scripture seems to speak of how women are basically secondd class compared to men but not just me but many have witnessed women being used by God in leadership so something doesn't add up to me

I think a lot of the friction comes about due to our warped view of what true leadership really is. We equate it with spirituality and hold the leaders up as the only ones God can use and speak to, but the Bible is clear that is not the case. Really, Jesus said that true leadership requires sacrifice, even of our personal safety. Leading the church properly is an emotionally, physically, and spiritually taxing job. I can't really see a woman raising kids having enough emotional bandwidth for it, and very few men would be up for the task either. Not to mention it was downright dangerous at the time, and is becoming moreso again today.

Based on scripture, it's easy to wonder if Mary Magdalene and John the Beloved were actually more "spiritual" than Peter. But Peter wasn't chosen to be the rock of the church due to spirituality alone. Surely he was a spiritual guy who loved Jesus very much. But it was his protectiveness, steadfastness, zeal, and boldness that qualified him for that very unique job, and made him a better fit for it than those who were arguably more "spiritual".

If the church stopped putting leadership on a pedestal and instead started recognizing and encouraging the gifts of the entire congregation, I think a lot of the friction would dissipate. People would feel more empowered to do what they are called to do, and fewer false sheherds would be drawn to leadership because there really shouldn't be anything glamorous about it; it's an incredibly tough and un-glamorous job when done correctly.

 

[Suze]

I think a lot of the friction comes about due to our warped view of what true leadership really is. We equate it with spirituality and hold the leaders up as the only ones God can use and speak to, but the Bible is clear that is not the case. Really, Jesus said that true leadership requires sacrifice, even of our personal safety. Leading the church properly is an emotionally, physically, and spiritually taxing job. I can't really see a woman raising kids having enough emotional bandwidth for it, and very few men would be up for the task either. Not to mention it was downright dangerous at the time, and is becoming moreso again today.

Based on scripture, it's easy to wonder if Mary Magdalene and John the Beloved were actually more "spiritual" than Peter. But Peter wasn't chosen to be the rock of the church due to spirituality alone. Surely he was a spiritual guy who loved Jesus very much. But it was his protectiveness, steadfastness, zeal, and boldness that qualified him for that very unique job, and made him a better fit for it than those who were arguably more "spiritual".

If the church stopped putting leadership on a pedestal and instead started recognizing and encouraging the gifts of the entire congregation, I think a lot of the friction would dissipate. People would feel more empowered to do what they are called to do, and fewer false sheherds would be drawn to leadership because there really shouldn't be anything glamorous about it; it's an incredibly tough and un-glamorous job when done correctly.

Who was the first person that Jesus told that he is the Messiah ?

 

[TomCullen]

If more men would step up to the plate, maybe the women could get back to their rightful place.

 

[Suze]

I think a lot of the friction comes about due to our warped view of what true leadership really is. We equate it with spirituality and hold the leaders up as the only ones God can use and speak to, but the Bible is clear that is not the case. Really, Jesus said that true leadership requires sacrifice, even of our personal safety. Leading the church properly is an emotionally, physically, and spiritually taxing job. I can't really see a woman raising kids having enough emotional bandwidth for it, and very few men would be up for the task either. Not to mention it was downright dangerous at the time, and is becoming moreso again today.

Based on scripture, it's easy to wonder if Mary Magdalene and John the Beloved were actually more "spiritual" than Peter. But Peter wasn't chosen to be the rock of the church due to spirituality alone. Surely he was a spiritual guy who loved Jesus very much. But it was his protectiveness, steadfastness, zeal, and boldness that qualified him for that very unique job, and made him a better fit for it than those who were arguably more "spiritual".

If the church stopped putting leadership on a pedestal and instead started recognizing and encouraging the gifts of the entire congregation, I think a lot of the friction would dissipate. People would feel more empowered to do what they are called to do, and fewer false sheherds would be drawn to leadership because there really shouldn't be anything glamorous about it; it's an incredibly tough and un-glamorous job when done correctly.

John chapter 4 verse 26 , this Samarian woman is the first person that Jesus told that he is the Messiah . To me , this is a deeply significant interaction .

 

[Snackersmom]

If more men would step up to the plate, maybe the women could get back to their rightful place.

There is WAY more truth to this statement than most would admit. Not that women always seek leadership for the right reasons (neither do men). But we often see in the Bible how God appointed women when the men didn't do what they should have. Deborah, Abigail, and Jael are all good examples of that.

Nothing throws me into "take charge mode" like seeing that important stuff isn't being taken care of.

 

[lrs68]

If more men would step up to the plate, maybe the women could get back to their rightful place.

In the Torah woman is created to be man's Help-Mate. Whatever things Adam was not good at doing Eve was excellent at doing. Whatever Eve was not good at doing Adam was excellent at doing. Together they were able to do all things excellently.

We also read that towards the end of this Age that the genders will noticably switch. This is not God's design but how it's prophecied. Today we see more effiminent men and rough women than ever before. Sadly, it cannot get better because it's foretold to get worse as a SIGN of the end times.

But to your post, absolutely 100% agree!

 

[Aaron56]

The RCC also call Mary the queen of heaven, mother of us all, the second Eve, and a mediatrix.

Quite disturbing, really, how much they add to Scripture, and especially when one realizes that their only ex cathedra dogmas
are not even about Jesus! No, the two ex cathedra dogmas that are mandatory for all Catholics to believe are about Mary.

The mother of us all is actually the New Jerusalem.

Paul wrote to the Galatians: "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." I mean, it's the black and white of scripture.

Just one sentence later Paul wrote: "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."

This is the dichotomy in the earth: children born after the flesh & children of promise. Since "the flesh profits nothing" we can be assured that no one inherits the kingdom of God because of their natural birth.

But back to your original sentence: Mary, like the disciples, were made into demigods so that repurposing statues of the Roman pantheon was affordable and expedient. No doubt, when the Vatican secrets are finally revealed, you will find work orders for covering the polytheistic Roman temples with Christian veneers.

 

[Aaron56]

If more men would step up to the plate, maybe the women could get back to their rightful place.

Prophesying on behalf of the Lord?

 

[Blain]

If more men would step up to the plate, maybe the women could get back to their rightful place.

Thier rightful place is the same as us men-in Christ. if there is no jew or gentile nor man or women in Christ then we stand in the same place as each other with only one leaderhip and that is Christ.
The way I see it God doesn't care if your man or women he only cares that his son is the one that leadds us

 

[TomCullen]

Thier rightful place is the same as us men-in Christ. if there is no jew or gentile nor man or women in Christ then we stand in the same place as each other with only one leaderhip and that is Christ.
The way I see it God doesn't care if your man or women he only cares that his son is the one that leadds us

Sorry, but no. Women do not hold the same place as men. Women have babies, men can't do that, not even liberal men. Men do things that women can never do as well. We are different, God made us different for a reason. We are equal in Christ, absolutely. But we are not equals in practical day to day matters, nor were we ever intended to be.