Monday, 5 December 2016

Roles of Women in the church: What can they do?

This is a controversial issue that indeed faces us today and definitely need to be addressed. These things cannot be just left to the wayside as a side issue but are fundamental to the function of the church and of the Christian way of life.

Leading the church

An issue that really causes division among many people is the issue of women being pastors or vicars.

Let us look at 1 Timothy 2:8-15:
"8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control"

Most people are offended when women are not permitted to teach, but this is not meant to be a chauvinistic statement at all, it is for the women's own protection considering in the context of the passage the serpent deceived her and she succumbed first to him, then Adam succumbed afterward.

Also, Matthew Henry says regarding the verse: "According to St. Paul, women are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority. But good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of true religion. Also, women must not think themselves excused from learning what is necessary to salvation, though they must not usurp authority. As woman was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression. But there is a word of comfort; that those who continue in sobriety, shall be saved in child-bearing, or with child-bearing, by the Messiah, who was born of a woman. And the especial sorrow to which the female sex is subject, should cause men to exercise their authority with much gentleness, tenderness, and affection.".

There is hope for the woman in this passage for she will have the responsibility of raising up another generation of godly seed for the future despite not being allowed in a position of authority.

Let us also take a look at Romans 16:
"16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant[a] of the church at Cenchreae, 2 that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well."

Phoebe is often misused as an example of a leader of a church or a woman being allowed to teach mixed congregations, but this is not the case. Just reading the context, Phoebe is not indicated in the context to hold an office of pastoral ministry, but rather is an assistant to the elders (Granted if there is pastoral ministry for women, it would be to other women and not to mixed congregations).

John Macarthur, when he was asked about a deacon at his church said in an interview said: "In the first place, we don’t…it’s not an office…it’s not an office. It’s not a position. We simply recognize that some women serve in remarkable and wonderful ways in the life of the church. Like Phoebe in Romans 16 who was a woman who was called a deacon. You can take the “ess” off it. There are women in the New Testament…the word “deacon” means servant. We have hundreds of women here who are servants of the church. They don’t have authority over anybody. They don’t meet, they don’t make decisions, they don’t have committees. They don’t have councils. They aren’t given problems to solve. They serve."

Notice again, the person did not hold the positions that MacArthur listed but rather, they only had any task providing assistance to the church.

Regarding the subject of Galatians 3:28, this verse out of context is often used as a justification of women holding positions of teaching mixed congregations or being elders in a church. But this is what the verses say:
"23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.".

When read in context, it is referring to our equal status before God. Not only are men and women equally sinners under God's wrath, they have equal standing in Christ when they are adopted into the family of God. Also to point of fact it is talking about there being one in Christ and there is no difference as to OUR SALVATION. The context doesn't allow for us to say that men and women can hold equal offices within the church.

A beautiful way David Pawson summed this up was "We are of equal value and dignity in God's sight, but with different roles and responsibilities". We still have male, female, Jew, Gentile, free and slaves, their distinctions are not blurred.

Women are allowed to teach to other women, in particular the older women teach the younger in the Book of Titus (2:3-5), particularly in the context of teaching them submission to their husbands as well as caring for their children and other tasks which we will get to later.

It is possible they can teach biblical teaching to women congregations, but not to mixed congregations, However I don't think this is common within the early church itself. You do have Priscilla (a woman) and Aquilla speaking to Apollo to educate him in the faith, but this is not to do with congregations and thus was acceptable. This was private and more evangelistic than anything else.

1 Corinthians 14:34 in the context of the chapter says:
"26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."

The context doesn't suggest that a woman should not speak at all, it is referring to a specific incident. Notice in verse 39 both men and women are encouraged to speak in tongues or prophecy in church, so it is clear that a woman is only to be silent in a specific matter rather than be silent in all cases. The women were probably forbidden to speak during the service itself but were allowed to pray and prophecy. The context can also refer to women not being in a position of authority.

None of these texts prove that women can hold a position of teaching ministry in the same way as men at all. I do not think that women are to be pastors or vicars, but that doesn't mean they are not they are useless. Older Women do have their roles in the church to instruct younger women. What I can say is, is that they can agree they can serve as deacons within the church themselves.
I leave you guys to study the scriptures to study what I am saying and check with the scriptures,

Women in the workplace?
This is a difficult and also a sensitive issue. This really depends on a number of factors. We read the following in Titus 2:
"3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled."

Women have a responsibility to to manage the home and the children while their husband is away. They are to look after the home and maintain it, it is their primary function. Rebekah Merkle has made the point that she isn't saying a woman's place is in the home but that a woman's PRIORITY is the home. I suggest buying her book Eve in Exile for more information if you have a kindle, it's a book that is a must read for men and women.

As for women being at work, this would not be possible if they have children and a house to run (Unless it was self employment but that's another issue and should be prayfully and through study be something that the Lord wills them to do). But even without children and a husband, It is worth calling into question the motivation of the woman? Why?

Feminism is DESTROYING family life, They see housewives as oppressed, backward, held back and not being used to full potential. Feminism is eroding the family unit and trying to disparage the idea that women should be housewives. 

Both Britain and America essentially are making women selfish (men also are being made selfish for different reasons which Lord Willing I'll comment on in the future).

There is a common trend in fiction to portray marriage as a miserable experience, including programs like Last of the Summer Wine (a program which is hilarious aside from the first two seasons BTW if you haven't checked it out). 

Men are often not allowed to go out and have some space and that the wife is sucking the marriage dry. There is also this common fallacy that somehow marriage robs men and women, namely with a common phrase "If you marry it's the end of your life" when nothing could be further from the truth. 

The Christian woman's priority is to look after the home, the Christian man's is to work and provide. 

As for women working, this is a controversial issue. In some cases maybe perhaps a woman can work, but in a marital situation it's not possible.

We have to be very careful not to give ammunition to the feminist to propound their vile heresies. One thing to keep in mind is concession on a particular point is not necessarily a ground to bolster a position. One example would be acknowledging that Mary did NOT present a sin offering but pointing out it does not bolster the position of the Roman Catholic on the subject of Mary being sinless as other passages in context demonstrate otherwise. Likewise, any affirmation of women having a job of some kind is not good enough to automatically prove feminism to be right, again, other passages in context would demonstrate otherwise.

A particular type of career also depends on another factor, that is assuming women can be in the workplace. It must be a position where she is NOT usurping authority over man, nor should it be a position where a man is allowed to tread.*

Such examples of women being in a place where only men are to tread are the army, police, the political realm (being a translator is an exception), running the courts, construction etc. These positions are out of bounds to women, despite what the feminist will tell you. A computer based job is possible depending the context it is in, along with perhaps writing, composing and arranging music etc. The list of jobs women could do is long but at the same time limited. If it places them in a situation where they run the risk of having a job that is applicable only to a man, they should avoid it.

Stunt work in film is controversial and it may have some issues, considering men and women have different bone and muscle structure and are suited for different contexts. This is something to keep in mind should any man or woman desire to go into Hollywood. This problem may not be present in voice acting as the only thing that really is used are voices, occasionally using the body to assist them getting into the role.. However, whether a Christian should work in Hollywood is another matter.

There is a case in the Old Testament where you do have women hard working, but we must keep in mind that we should not see this as a pretext for female employment and the context I am referring to is Ruth in the field with other women, working under Boaz away from the men. We must go back to verse 22 of Chapter 1 for the context:
"22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabite her daughter-in-law with her, who returned from the country of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest."

Ruth then goes to the field to glean in chapter 2: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ruth%202

Read it carefully and you'll see the following:
1. Ruth is instructed to stay with the women who are in the field
2. Boaz instructs the men not to touch her
Ruth is granted some protection by Boaz while working with the women in the field. She is granted safety during her time that she is partaking of the harvest.

Again, we must be careful not to assume this is a pretext for women to be in the workplace. Nor is this a pretext for the feminists to jump up and down for joy.

Proverbs 31 is a context used by both sides of the debate, referring to a virtuous wife:
"10 [d] An excellent wife who can find?
    She is far more precious than jewels.
11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
    and he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good, and not harm,
    all the days of her life.
13 She seeks wool and flax,
    and works with willing hands.
14 She is like the ships of the merchant;
    she brings her food from afar.
15 She rises while it is yet night
    and provides food for her household
    and portions for her maidens.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
    with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She dresses herself[e] with strength
    and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
    Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
    and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor
    and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of snow for her household,
    for all her household are clothed in scarlet.[f]
22 She makes bed coverings for herself;
    her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates
    when he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
    she delivers sashes to the merchant.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
    and she laughs at the time to come.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
    and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household
    and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and call her blessed;
    her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women have done excellently,
    but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
    but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands,
    and let her works praise her in the gates.

This is likely to be a case where a woman is able to make some money on the side, while at the same time managing the home, but her job as one to manage the home while the husband is away is the PRIORITY. She never neglects her duty as a wife or a mother. If she did neglect those things, I sincerely doubt the husband would praise her or the children call her blessed. Managing the home is a God ordained task for the Christian woman, just as earning income and being the provider is the ordained task for the man. 

Furthermore, It is important to note that the woman selling certain items is NOT a full time position that is a detriment to her family, with the addition of actually making clothes and bedding for her household and possibly clothes for others. She appears to have a form of self employment, but that is anachronistic and tenuous at best.

There is also the caring for the poor, which can either inviting them into the house, going to them out of the house, or a mixture, but once again NEVER to the detriment of her house.

A housewife must NEVER put herself in a position where the home is neglected, which a full time job may cause her to do. 

A single woman possibly may be free to pursue a career, but NOT for selfish ulterior reasons. I would however say the woman should and MUST seek the Lord's will and study the scriptures before considering it, lest she fall to ruin and disqualification. If the Lord calls her to be a housewife, there isn't to be a selfish motivation such as being lazy or self indulgent. Being lazy and hating work is NOT a reason to be a housewife, but being a vessel God can use to bring children to worship him is a good reason to be a housewife, not the only one but still a good reason. The character of a holy woman in the household may also be inviting to the person who is invited, what hospitality have they received from you they will think, assuming the woman is properly looking after the home.

The man also should not have selfish reasons for either working or attempt to get out of work by being lazy, but that's an issue I won't address here. Comments on Christian work ethics have been addressed here by me here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/christian-work-ethics-how-to-behave-in.html

It is important to realise why children need mother at home while father is away.

Truth be told, both parents are needed in order to keep a family alive and actually work.

The women relieve the responsibility of looking after the home from their husbands, caring for the children and raising them. The men who work are providing for the family and as such need to make sure not only that the income they have is sufficient, but they also spend time with the wife and children as well.

A marriage like this is essential in raising up godly seed. I have already mentioned 1 Timothy 2:11-15 but not only this, fathers need to raise their children.

As David Pawson has pointed out "For the man job first, for the wife, relationships first".

The feminist in their zeal tries to uphold women's rights at the expense of men's rights, at least in the radical circles. Nevertheless, feminism as pointed out destroys the family unit and does more harm than good.

Chauvinism is just as bad which I can agree with the feminist on, but I don't see feminism as something that a Christian should embrace, even if there are points of agreement.

It's like trying to embrace Muslims as worshipping the same God as Christians when they have major doctrinal differences despite any common ground they share with us.

One thing I will say is this, A woman who seeks a job is NOT placing herself as under the head of a man like a husband. The husband is her head, not the employer. The employer is in charge and is the head of an organization, but he or she is not a head like a husband is to a wife.

I work for a pool company and there was a girl who worked there this year during the summer and she was hardworking. She went back to university when the summer was over and will return at the time of this writing for a little while near the end of this month, but I digress.

My employer was not her head as a husband is to his wife. The leadership he and his father had over her is the same they have over me, namely employer and employee. The two men are the employers, the girl and I are merely the servants or the employees.

A woman is not violating scriptural headship if she is working for an organization. whether she be single or married (Even if it were possible for a married woman to have a career, she is not placing herself under a different head in a marital sense.)

Shame of being a housewife?
This is for those who have been disparaged by many feminists and nay sayers and accused of being backwards and old fashioned, let me say this to you, You are not those things. If anything, you are in a noble position and God has put you there to raise up Godly seed for his glory and purpose.

Think about it, Training your children in the Gospel and to live for Jesus, That is a great privilege that should NOT be shunned. You have an opportunity to raise up children who in their adult years will be a godly influence in their workplace or home of their own, or God even may raise up a potential missionary he can use, depending on what his will is.

Don't EVER let anyone try to bring you down.

If you are told "You should be supporting your husband with a job", shrug it off. God has called you for a purpose. You and your husband need each other. Paul Washer's wife Charo Washer has had to suffer many comments from others regarding her choosing God's will for her. See the following talk or read the transcript here: http://illbehonest.com/recovering-biblical-womanhood-paul-washer

The feminist is trying to undermine and destroy marriage in the name of women's liberation. However, they are self serving and are actually doing a lot of damage to today's women. Even the feminists who have a noble intention such as fighting against the oppression of women and fighting for their rights run the risk of being unbalanced.

While it may not be necessarily bad for women to have a job, it is wicked and detestable to disparage marriage the way the feminists do. Don't be foolish enough to buy into their bondage. They portray marriage as a prison that women are not free to do what they want, which is again is a horrible caricature of marriage that the world loves to spread. If the Lord has called you to be a housewife, just ignore the naysayers. As the saying goes "Go with the wind, even if it's against the tide".

No, men and women may not get what they want in marriage, but that's life (And self indulgence is not an excuse for celibacy either), marriage is self sacrificing, it requires both partners to pursue each other in holiness and righteousness.

It is also hilarious that feminists claim to fight for women to do what they want yet women who CHOOSE to be housewives, not forced but CHOOSE are looked down upon. Can I say hypocrisy much?

Marital Problems
This section requires some background but you'll see where I am going with this.

Back in 1991, there were three cartoons released for Nickelodeon. They were known as Doug, Ren and Stimpy and Rugrats, which itself is the most well known and the longest running of the three despite it's brief hiatus.

There are three couples that are found in the Rugrats which show us three different marriages.

I know Klasky Csupo, the company that created the show were not giving an exposition on what is a true marriage, but hear me out.

We first have Stu and Didi Pickles. Stu has no job and used to work in a lard factory but seeks to be an inventor (A noble profession but he isn't good at it). Inventing is his dream job which he hopelessly chases after, forcing his family to live of benefits presumably. His brother Drew (Who we'll get to soon) even says this in the first movie:
"Drew: You can't even make ends meet now. You got no insurance, no savings, and another kid on the way!

Stu: For your information, bro, I am working on something right now that is going to put this branch of the Pickles family on Easy Street."

Chasing after a dream to the neglect of one's family is not very good, not to mention you have BOTH staying at home as opposed to Stu heading to work.

The other extreme is Drew Pickles and his wife Charlotte. Both of whom have little time for Angelica and presumably have jobs. Charlotte especially in most episodes is often seen on the phone and in a business suit speaking to her assistant Jonathan. Both of them do not make time for Angelica, usually dropping her off at Stu's house to be babysat. 

Charlotte should be at home taking care of Angelica and raising her until she is able to stand on her own and find a husband.

The final example are Betty and Howard DeVille and after just a brief look on the wikipage as well as going into my memory, Betty seems to be the one taking the lead in the marriage, which should not be the case, Howard should be the one taking the lead rather than letting his wife doing it.

While not a perfect analogy, Rugrats certainly gives us an interesting take on different kinds of marriages, ones that are not biblically sound. It is still an interesting contrast to observe even if Klasky Csupo were not intending to give an exposition on what marriage should be.

Submission to the Husbands and Loving of the Wives
This is something that is offensive to the feminists and they often cry foul at this idea, going as far as obliterating marriage altogether, let's take a look.

"22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."

Here, marriage is to be honoured and kept pure in honour of the Lord, How can this be done when the husband doesn't love his wife? If there is no love, the wife will either submit begrudgingly or be rebellious. There is no sanctification in the sight of the Lord if this is the attitude that is been demonstrated.

Christ is not abusive, it is hypocritical to abuse your spouse when your Lord and Saviour doesn't treat you that way, you can't have it both ways. For a contrast of two marriages, see the following article: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/husbands-love-your-wives-wives-submit.html

We also observe that just as Christ gave his life for the church, his bride, we as men if we are married must be willing to lay down our lives for our wives in order to preserve their lives. Willingness to die for your spouse is important for us men.

We'll also take a look at 1 Peter 3:
"3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you[a] of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."

Both the men and women have a responsibility to each other, the woman is to submit to and listen to her husband and obey, whereas the man is to love his wife, along with cherishing and protecting her, showing her grace too.

Keep in mind that the braiding of hair itself isn't forbidden for all time, it is referring to a the hairstyle in a context it's used. Braided hair itself isn't evil, but in the context of ancient Greece, it was the hair of the cult prostitutes and the Delphic Oracle. Braided hair divorced from idolatry is fine, as in our culture it doesn't have that connotation. It is an exhortation to women not to wear clothing that makes them look like a pagan when they are not.

As for adornments and the subject of hair, Paul Washer had a very interesting thing to say on it:
"Now, look what it says here. It says, “Not with braided hair, or gold or pearls or costly garments.”

Now, does this mean, as some have interpreted, that a woman can never braid her hair? Well, if you go into the Greek world, you will see some braiding that went on that literally is frightening. The woman looked like Medusa. I am not kidding. They braided hair to the… they would spend days braiding this hair up and it was going all over the place and it looks like snakes coming out of her head. That’s what Satan will always do to a culture.

What he’s talking about here is not that you can’t braid your hair. It’s talking about just the simplicity of it. Not extravagant.

And then there’s gold and pearls or costly garments. Now, what does this mean? Well, I see that the servants of Abraham gave Isaac’s bride some costly bracelets, some rings for her nose, you know go figure. So, that wasn’t treated as an ungodly thing. I think it goes back again to extravagance, extravagance.

And costly garments? No, women should not be preoccupied with spending a lot of money on clothing. But you know what? A wise woman, a noble woman can take a little bit of something and make it look pretty amazing. Remember the Proverbs 31 woman? She didn’t just dress her household. She herself dressed in purple. But it was a frugality, a simplicity." http://illbehonest.com/recovering-biblical-womanhood-paul-washer

I recommend reading the entire article to understand where Washer is coming from.

Offices open to women
This pertains to function in the body of Christ as opposed to the workplace. I have already explained that women should not be leading the church so I need not go over that again. With that said, are there positions that women can inhabit, two I have already given, teaching other women and prophesying. An example of prophecy in the book of Acts would be Phillip's daughters (Acts 21:9). We are not told what they prophesied, only that they had that gift, but nevertheless, it shows that position is open in the New Testament church.

We also do have examples of prophetesses in the Old Testament which includes but is not limited to Miriam, Deborah and Huldah. Isaiah's wife is a possible candidate for being a prophet as well. They may also be evangelists too, spreading the gospel by how they live with proper conduct so that the Way is not blasphemed.

What women cannot do in the church is place themselves in a position where they are teaching a mixed congregation, that is a job for a man.

To go back to Titus 2:3-5, not only would that be instructions to the married women on how to behave, there is also a possible precedent for the old woman to teach the scriptures to the young women and help them. Of course in the marital situation, the woman is under the headship of her husband so they can effectively teach their children just as scripture commands (Deuteronomy 6:7 has a guiding principle for Christians though we are not under the law of Moses).

There are ministries open to women, but they are not allowed to have authority over men. Leadership is male for a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church (Ephesians 5:23).

Final words
I implore all who read this not to come away from this article not to just blindly accept what I say. You check out what I am saying with the scriptures, study the issues, study the scriptures and pray about it. Check the words I say with the scriptures and be Bereans.

Answering Judaism.

*This point I need to rethink.

No comments:

Post a Comment