Men & Women, Who Should Be Ordained?

[Eleventh Doctor]

There's obviously a question about this since people have been disagreeing. Also how are men and women equal if the man is always the leader?

Also let's return to Deborah, you say she submitted herself to Barak but I read that she sent for him and told him what do.

[Miss Friendship]

Wouldn't you say men and women are equal even though only one can have children? Look, if you don't like the idea if man in authority then obviously you don't like the way God has set things up. Maybe you could go complain to Him about it.

About Deborah....didn't she get Baraks approval before she proceeded? And that situation was special....God couldnt find a willing man for the job, so He chose a woman. Now that i think about it, dont you think Miriam would have been a capable leader for the Israelites, but God put her under the authority of her brothers, even though He used her in other ways. Women are very important....there would be no men without them, I might add, but they have different roles.

[Eleventh Doctor]

You're right I don't like the way you've interpreted how God has set this up, I don't think that's His fault though.

As for Deborah, where does it say God couldn't find a man for the job? And no I don't see where she asked for Barajs approval. She summoned him to her and was like why haven't you done what God has commanded?

[Miss Friendship]

I am not sure how else to interrupt the way God created man and woman.

Ok I went and read that chapter too. Yes, debroah was in charge, but notice that she called a man to help her. The story is about Debroah and Barak defeating the enemy -- not just debroah.

I didn't imply the Bible said that. I am just assuming God chose a woman cause all the men were fearful. And this a rare case.... Usually God calls the men.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Notice she called the individual who had men under his command, it wasn't like she just called up a random man because she needed a man. Barak wasn't doing anything until Deborah called him out and Deborah specifically says that because of that the credit will not go to him.

Why do you assume that?

[Miss Friendship]

I would like to see more examples like Debroahs in the Bible than I do.... So what do you do with the fact that God created women to help men?

I assumed because I live in a free country where I can think for myself and freely express my opinions, especially if I admit it's an opinion. Do I have that right here?

[Eleventh Doctor]

How is that a fact? I think God created men and women to help each other.

You had that right but you also have to defend your assumption, so I'm asking why assume that there were no good men? Why not assume that Deborah was the best for the job?

[Miss Friendship]

Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, it is not good for man to be alone, I will make a helpmeet for him.

That states it clearly if you ask me.

Assumptions generally can't be disproved, or proved. Its just a theory. And that what mine is.

And yes obviously Debroah was the best for the job, although how many other women judges do we read about in the New testament? Remember not everything in the old testament do we follow, especially if there is something in the new that speaks against it.

[TigerShadow]

How many judges do we read about in the New Testament anyway? >_> Deborah being one woman among many men doesn't minimize her importance, although I would argue that Deborah is more of an example of political leadership than religious.

[Miss Friendship]

You have a point, Tiger, I am glad you made it. The New Testament doesn't speak of judges (who fight for God) period. Why? Simple. Jesus set up a new Kingdom and judging no longer became a territory for a follower of Jesus. And we also read of new instructions to the women. There is a difference between the old and the new testaments.

And it obviously was more of a political rebellion against the enemy, then a church ordination...

I wasn't trying in any way to brush Deborah's importance by....simply pointing out her case is an uncommon one.

[TigerShadow]

Why? Simple. Jesus set up a new Kingdom and judging no longer became a territory for a follower of Jesus.

Historically speaking, this is inaccurate. Judges had not been political leaders in Israel for hundreds of years before Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection; the monarchy was put in place, then Israel was conquered by the Babylonians, then they returned to Jerusalem, then they were conquered by Alexander the Great, then they were placed under Roman rule. To say that judges were not political leaders as a direct result of the New Covenant is absurd.

[Miss Friendship]

I was more referring to the fact that all throughout the old testament you have the Jews killing other nations, judges or no judges. Jesus changed that....for His followers, I should say. Jews havent necessarily stopped their tridition of violence...the ones who have not followed their Messiah. But this is turning into more of a Old versus New discussion.

Back to the topic?

[Spoon]

Wait so the idea here is 'men and women are equal, except women because they must submit to men'? That sounds like a healthy and stable relationship if I ever heard of one.

[Miss Friendship]

No the idea here is that men and women are equal; God just gave them different roles. For example, suppose we say men and women are not equal because a woman can bear children, but a man cannot. Isn't that silly? Of course. God set it up so men and women marry. What if both were in charge? Sounds like a recipe for disaster... Like divorce? Do you know how rare divorce was only a hundred years ago? It was a shame and disgrace...first of all, when they vowed "for life" they meant it. I could go into more reasons, but when nations go against Gods order for a marriage, its going to change everyone's thinking about it. Which has obviously been done.

[TigerShadow]

Just because divorce was rare a hundred years ago doesn't mean that people actually cared about holding true to God's ideas about marriage—I mean, you said it yourself, divorce resulted in scandal and shame, which means that people who might have divorced today wouldn't have done so for legalistic reasons rather than moral ones. Extramarital affairs were just as much a thing back then as they are now; it's just that women having them was looked upon with more criticism. Additionally, the passage about wives submitting to their husbands was twisted to subjugate women and allow their husbands to treat them however they chose; wife-beating used to be a legitimate thing even in American law. Disrespect for the institution of marriage has been rampant in human society since sin entered the world; it's just that people are more open about how little they care for it nowadays.

[Miss Friendship]

You're probably right. The world is never going to obey Gods order for marriage, or anything else for that matter, why try to fix it anyway? So when a church ordains a woman, goes to war, allows divorce and remarriage, are rich and increased, its probably best to assume they are part of the Kingdom of this world. No use trying to warn them...if they live in America, they won't hear anyway.

[TigerShadow]

I get a vibe of sarcasm in your post, but said sarcasm is predicated on the idea that I don't care about a church committing moral wrong, and as nice of a strawman as that is, it isn't anywhere close to what I actually said. What I was doing was correcting the misconception that "back in the good ol' days, everything was great!" when both history and human nature tell us otherwise. You seem to be under the impression that in previous years, people were much more devoted to God, when they were really more devoted to religion. The only thing that's changed is how much religion is allowed in the public sphere, not how many people really cared.

[Spoon]

Merriam Webster defines equality as 'the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.'

So how does that work if one of the members in a relationship is 'in charge' of the other? How can you say there's equality and then say it would be a disaster if they were both in charge? In charge of what?

[Miss Friendship]

First of all I was being sarcastic, but it comes from a sense of frustration, a real concern, for the majority of the churches in America. Second I never meant to imply that years ago everything was better, they still were sinners...my point merely was the marriages held together better, in spite of any excuses you could come up with like "beating their wives" their wives were afraid to stand up etc. What you are forgetting is that even though sin is throughout every age, it can gradually become worse. Take the example of Noah's flood. Adam and Eve sinned, but it wasn't until it got so out of hand that God decided to destroy the earth. Also Jesus predicts that in the last days the world will wax more and more sinful, and homosexuality is mentioned....its Gods way of ripening the nation for judgement and you see that happening in America and Europe...the whole world....everyone is becoming used to sin. Years ago divorce was a shame, now who cares?

Back to the subject of men/women/equality.

Here is a good question. Are you equal with your parents? Yes and no. You are equal because you are both created in the image of God, you have the same rights, fill in the blank... But at the same time we are under their authority. We owe them obedience (if we obey Gods command to honor and obey our parents) we have to have a level of respect to them, that will be missing when we go visit our friend down the street.

When I mean in charge I should have said "leadership" Suppose a family wants to move. The wife wants California, and the man wants to move North Dakota. Neither of them are going to change their minds, and because both are equal, its just up to whoever can argue the loudest? Now that isn't ideal I know,the husband and wife should work this out together and agree. But in reality, things like this happen, cause we all have a great deal of stubbornss and pride in our natures. The wife, besides hating North Dakato, has the wrong idea that if she gives into her husband she is displaying weakness and her friends urge her "not to let him rule you" the husband, on the other hand knows that if he gives in, the wife will learn she can control her husband, and who wants a nagging wife?

I think our ideal marriages are the same, I am merely pointing out that cheerful willing submission in the wife is a huge help in any and every marriage. And it is pointed out in scripture.

[Eleventh Doctor]

In charge and leadership are the same thing.

But in reality, things like this happen, cause we all have a great deal of stubbornness and pride in our natures. The husband, besides hating California, has the wrong idea that if he gives into his wife he is displaying weakness and his friends urge him "not to let her rule you" the wife, on the other hand knows that if she gives in, the husband will learn he can control his wife, and who wants a controlling husband?

I think it's important to note that all of the verses that say wives submit to your husband are immediately followed by verses saying husbands sacrifice yourself for your wives. Die to self. The Bible is not a one sided command, it is a command for mutual submission and sacrifice. There is no leader in a marriage, besides God. A cheerful submissive wife is useless in a marriage without a husband who sacrifices himself, who is willing to sacrifice his desire to go to North Dakota.