Excellent material Derick.   Let us know when those articles are on your 
website.
Dean
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Derick Dickens" <Derick@...>
To: <pastorsforum@...>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 8:21 AM
Subject: RE: [PastorsForum] Women in ministry


Jerry,

I would love to debate you point by point on this issue.  I have written
a series of 12 articles on this one issue and we are currently editing
them for publication in booklet form and on my website.  Yet, it seems
you have not read much of the literature opposing your viewpoint and you
offer nothing too new in your analysis for your side.  In fact you
violate hermeneutical laws in doing such and your misconceptions of our
side of the issue is apparent.  So, Let me tackle much of what you said
below.  I will preceede everything with <Derick> (Hey, this is an issue
my IFB brothers and I agree... This will be fun, David W and I on the
same team for once).

>
>
>
> Women in Ministry
>
> Acts 2:17-2:21
>
> Male and Female Created He Them
>
> "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
> him; male and female created he them" (Genesis
>
> 1:27).
>
> "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their
> name Adam, in the day when they were created" (Genesis 5:2).
>
> It is interesting to note that God called both male and
> female, "Adam"
> in the day they were created. Adam means "man." Adam and Eve were
> created with God-ordained differences from each other, but
> together they
> made a full "man," or a complete picture of God Himself. There was
> perfection in their union. Their differences were not a
> source of discord or
> inequality, but a beautiful compliment to each other.
> Together, God gave
> them the task of overseeing and ruling His creation

<Derick> First, let me say that there is much conjecture.  If you read
Genesis 2, you find out that Adam was called a man before Eve was
created.  Thus, you seem to indicate that it takes the two of them to be
a man which is not supported at all in Scripture and clearly portrayed
otherwise in Genesis.  Notice in verse 15 of Chapter 2, he placed man in
the Garden.  You seem to indicate that man is incomplete unless there is
a woman.  I disagree, in fact Paul recounts that some are called to
singleness.  The issue is companionship in Genesis 2, God divinely
created man to have a companion whom God created was to be woman.
Notice a couple of things, 1.  That woman was created to be man's
helper, help meet some call it (Genesis 2:18).  They were to be
comparable, this is important when understanding the Trinity.  Yes, both
were given the task, but remember that the helper was Eve.  Before the
fall the design was that woman was the helper.  She was to help the man.
>
> "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
> multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
> dominion over the
> fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
> thing that moveth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:28).
>
> Notice that God gave the above commission to them both. There is no
> hint that there was anything but equal authority between man
> and woman as
> they existed in a sinless state. What changed things?

<Derick> See my comments above.  Woman was created for man to be his
helper, or help meet.  The word in that instance is not that man is to
help woman but woman to help man.  She must be comparable in many
regards.  In fact, if we look at the fall we see an interresting
notation from God to Adam, "Because you have heeded the voice of your
wife" (Genesis 3:17).  Notice, this was not said to Eve when she heeded
the voice of the serpant.  In other words, God expected Adam to be the
leader in the family.
>
> In the next few chapters of Genesis, we find that sin entered
> the heart
> of Adam and Eve. The result was a temporary curse placed upon
> both man
> and woman, which would affect the whole earth.

<Derick> I am interrested in why you call this temporary.  We will
address this later in the text.
>
> Genesis 3:14-19: "And the LORD God said unto the serpent,
> Because thou
> hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above
> every beast
> of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt
> thou eat all
> the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and
> the woman,
> and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou
> shalt bruise his heel. 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;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt
> eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat
> bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast
> thou taken: for
> dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
>
> This curse has affected all aspects of creation, from the
> ground itself
> (infested with weeds and thorns) to human relationships. (I say
> temporary, because in Christ this curse is removed, as we
> shall see later on).

<Derick> Were the thorns and thistles removed?  I agree Jesus Christ
removed the curse, the problem is that on this side of Glory that is not
the case.  Remember Romans 5, if Jesus removed the curse then sin is not
upon all people and has not entered the world anymore.  We will get
there in just a minute, you seem to be trying to build up a case here.
>
> When Eve ate the forbidden fruit and enticed Adam to sin with
> her, one
> of the consequences for women was the loss of equality with
> men, as men
> were to rule over women, instead of men and women ruling
> together. She
> would now be "ruled by her husband."

<Derick> First, your ignorance of our side of the argument is evident.
Equality with man is not the issue.  Unfortunately, the other side sees
this as an equality issue in which it is not.  This is no more of an
equality issue as it is an issue of roles.  Just like the Trinity, the
Son submits to the Father and only does what the Father states yet he is
still equal with God in the Trinity.  You said this affects the equality
of woman to man.  I do not think I know one scholar who would support
this statement and I totally reject it because both are equal.  Yet,
their roles are different.
>
> However, when Jesus came as sinless Man and died as the
> Messiah on the
> cross for us, all things were restored positionally. In
> actuality, the
> restoration of man (men and women) began to take place at that very
> moment.

<Derick> Site the verse please on this issue.  IN fact, it is Ephesians
5 and I Timothy 2 that indicate you are wrong.  You set up a false
argument that equality was ruined... Yet I have clearly stated that no
scholar on my side says it is an equality issue.  Secondly, I have shown
that she was to be his helper before the fall, not after the fall.
Finally, you seem to indicate that the "Desire of the woman" in the
curse is prescriptive not descriptive.  My wife in had to write a report
on this phrase exploring the Hebrew in that phrase.  She concluded that
there is no doubt that the phrase is descriptive not prescriptive as you
seem to indicate.  Thus, the desire of a woman to control her husband is
describing her struggle throughout life, not a part of God's curse.
Thus, your understanding of this verse and the Hebrew insights therein
seems at best void.
>
> Though the complete cleansing of the curse has not yet been
> manifested
> on the earth, the day is coming when it will be so. Or to put it
> another way, all those who receive Jesus as Savior receive
> restoration as
> Sons of God, but not all of us walk in that restoration--yet. Through
> Jesus, the curse upon women has been lifted.

<Derick> Again, you believe the submissive role is based upon the fall.
I contend that it was before the fall and I invite inquiry upon the
verse that I site.  The curse has not been lifted.  IN fact, that is the
entire problem. The Lion and the Lamb will lie down.  I garden and thus
I deal with thorns and thistles today.  These have not been lifted and
the garden has not been restored in the New Jerusalem.  What you
essentially are saying is that part of the curse was done away with,
without any support from other verses, while other aspects have not been
done away with.  You take descriptive phrases and treat them as
prescriptive in supporting your argument and so, even the curse is
expanded in your eyes as a result.
>
> Women no longer have to receive pain in childbirth nor are they
> inferior to man with him ruling over them. Women can now be
> restored to their
> original place and plan that God had for all His "sons."
> Although we do
> not see all things restored at this time, "legally" in the spiritual
> realm, they already have been.

<Derick> Have you ever had a child.  I just asked my wife and she said
there is pain in childbirth.  She had 3 children without pain medication
and so I think you are wrong on this issue.  There are weeds in my
garden that I have to get out.  Yet, you say we believe women are
inferior.  Those are your words, not the Bible's nor mine.  As stated,
this is about role not about equality.  We agree that women are equal
yet they hold different roles.  Just like in the Trinity, the Father is
equal to the Son is equal to the Spirit.  Yet, the Son is said to submit
to the Father and does nothing except from the Father, he submits to the
father.  Their roles are different but they are equal.  Again, it seems
you are basing your understanding and arguments not upon what we
actually believe but upon your preconcieved notions of submission.
>
> Adam was the head of the first race of mankind; and Jesus is the head
> of the last race, the adopted children of God. God only sees two
> races--the Adamic race (all natural-born mankind) and His
> children through
> Jesus (all those born of the spirit).
>
<Derick> Again, there are natural inconsistancies in this issue.  You
are partially correct and will come back later to address some of the
issues.
>
>
> "For since by man came death, by man came also the
> resurrection of the
> dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
> alive" (I Corinthians 15:21 -22).

<Derick> Notice the issue is death.  Not physical death remind you
(which was also a part of the curse) but Spiritual death.  BTW, Physical
death was not done away with in Christ except those who will be taken.
The issue was about death in this issue, namely the physical death for
believers.
>
> Once we are born into the kingdom of God, we become new creatures in
> Christ. In the Spirit, we find there is "neither male nor
> female," just
> as there are no race distinctions nor class separations. The
> Lord looks
> on the hearts of His new creatures and therefore does not
> discriminate
> when He offers His love and privileges. Women are not
> excluded from any
> of God's promises nor callings merely because of their sex.

<Derick> Now you take the Galatians verse out of context like most on
your side often do.  We can explore it exegetically, but the issue in
Galatians is Salvation.  IS God saying that there are no male or
females?  That means homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexual
relationships.  In fact, that means what Paul sais in Titus 2 and I
Timothy 2 about women really does not apply just to women.  Do you see
the absurdity on this?  Unless you are ready to advocate homosexuality,
which the Bible condemns, then you must say that there is a difference
and that God notices a difference.  In Galatians it is talking about
God's election of Saints is not determined on whether they are male or
female, slave or free, etc.  Not that he has done away with all the
roles.  Paul later says that he would not have a woman excersize
authority over a man.  Was Paul contradicting himself?  I do not think
so.  The latter instance in I Timothy 2 is in alignment with what he
said in Galatians.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
> neither bond
> nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in
> Christ Jesus."

<Derick> I addressed that above.  I would invite inquiry into this.  In
fact, one of my 12 articles is just on galatians 3:28.  BTW, is he
saying that there is no longer a Greek and no longer a person of the
Jewish Lineage?  Of course not.  Even Paul recognized that and preached
first to the Jews and also to the Greek.  This is specifically talking
about election in salvation.
>
> God's Masculine and Feminine Traits
>
> As we stated above, the command to have dominion over and subdue the
> earth was given to both Adam and Eve. They were both to rule
> and reign
> over the Lord's creation. The very act of subduing something requires
> authority, aggressiveness and leadership, as well as
> humility, tenderness,
> patience, and the ability to respect the intrinsic value of
> what we are
> ruling. Most of all, it requires love.
>
> Within God's own nature we find these same qualities. Both men and
> women are to become like Him as we are conformed to His
> image. Since this
> is true, there are times that under the unction of the Holy Spirit a
> woman should assert herself boldly. (This assertion, however,
> should not
> necessarily be toward others, but rather toward the enemy,
> Satan!) For
> men and women to become overcomers they must have this boldness and
> authority over the devil. God still desires that His people
> rule and reign
> with Him. His intention is to qualify us for that position,
> whether we
> be male or female. "And hath made us kings and priests unto
> God and his
> Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen"
> (Revelation 1:6).

<Derick> A couple of notes that need to be made.  We are made in God's
image both male and female.  Even within the Godhead there is clear
roles of submission.  God has never done away with this and there is no
text that indicates this but there are clear texts that state it is
still in force.  Really, in the above section you say nothing
substanative but you are trying to imply somethings.  Thus, the dominion
issue for you seems to be important.  It is important to an extent but
the text and all the text of Scripture is important.
>
> Even though "kings" is a masculine term, this is the ultimate
> destination He desires for all of His people. The Lord often
> uses both male and
> female terms to refer to both sexes. Women are to live in the "hidden
> man of the heart" (1 Peter 3:4). Both men and women in the church are
> referred to as "the bride of Christ." God has both a masculine and
> feminine nature.

<Derick> Correct, both male and females are referred to as the "Bride of
Christ".  This is a singular term not a plural term.  In other words, it
is a term that is indicative of the entire group not each individual
member.  By myself, I am not the Bride of Christ.  It is the entire
church that will be assembled (Universal/Kingdom of God for my IFB
brothers) that is the Bride of Christ.  Which, by the way, shows our
relationship to the Son who is our groomsman.  In fact, that
relationship in Ephesians 5 is shown further in that the wife submits to
her husband as to the Lord and the husband loves the wife as Christ
loves the Church.  The illustration is showing the truth of God and how
things will be in glory.  We are the bride and thus submit to the Son
and act as though a wife here is suppose to to her husband.  Why?
Because Christ had great love for us.  You are implying something with I
Peter 3:4 and I invite you comments on which direction you are going
before I address the issue.
>
>
>
> The mother heart of Jesus was evident as he prayed over Jerusalem.
>
> "0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest
> them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy
> children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under
> her wings, and
> ye would not!" (Matthew
>
> 23:37).

<Derick> The "mother" heart of Jesus.  We have a phrase on this board
that is appropriate here...  BAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA.  You must try to feminize
Jesus to make your argument sound reasonable.  Quite the contrary, Jesus
was a man.
>
> Submission is considered to be a feminine trait. However, Jesus
> submitted to the cross under the direction of the Father. If
> we walk in the
> Spirit, we too will possess both the masculine aggressiveness and
> feminine submissiveness of God.

<Derick> Submission is not a feminine trait.  Again, you are making an
assertion that is not what we would stand by.  Jesus did submit to the
Father, which shows that it is a glorious thing at times.  To say it is
feminine I deny.  God commands all of us to submit to Him.  He commands
all to submit to authority and a congregation to submit to the authority
of the Pastor.  It is not merely a feminine trait even though it is
required of women to their husband.  The Trinity, in all it's
prefection, has submissive roles and each of the three are considered
masculine in the text of Scripture.
>
> Both submissiveness and aggressiveness are God-given strengths. Yet,
> both can be perverted, so that we become submissive and
> aggressive in the
> wrong ways, with the wrong attitudes. Because these qualities are so
> misused and misunderstood by the world, they have become
> distasteful and
> despised.

<Derick> I am not sure it is despised because it is misunderstood,
though you seem to have a misunderstanding of the issue, but because it
is God's Word.  People will despise God's Word naturally because they
hate God and hate what He says.  Even if they have a clear understanding
of the word, they will still despise it.  Jesus said they will despise
us because of Him.  I expect no less for other things of the Bible.
>
> If aggression is frowned upon, submission is viewed in an even more
> negative light in western culture. We equate submission with
> weakness and
> lack of spirit. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was
> never a human being more submitted to God than Jesus Christ-- 
> yet never was
> there one as completely resistant to the system of the world! It took
> extraordinary submissiveness and aggression for Jesus to overcome the
> world. For the Christian, whether we are male or female, He
> is our model.
> We are to possess His qualities and use them according to the needs
> around us.

<Derick> I agree with your statements here.  Aggression I would change
to boldness because aggression is not necessarily a Biblical Word.  You
may be meaning leadership as well.
>
> Women as Ministers
>
> How does all of this lead up to women ministers? Perhaps you are
> thinking that although we have laid a biblical foundation for
> "neither male
> nor female" in Christ, certain verses in the New Testament
> still seem to
> ban women from ministry positions in the church. Let's examine these
> verses for the true interpretation.

<Derick> I love the use of the word "seem".
>
> "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
> unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as
> also saith the law" (1 Corinthians 14:34).
>
> "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I
> suffer not a
> woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in
> silence" (1 Timothy 2:11-12).
>
> In these verses, Paul cannot be addressing women who were in the
> ministry, but rather those in the congregation who were out
> of order. How do
> we know this? We have many such proofs, many from Paul
> himself. Here is
> a partial list of women who were all in influential positions of
> leadership in the early church.

<Derick> You state that he cannot be addressing women in the ministry.
Thus you have a pressupposition that there are two classes, women in the
ministry and women not in the ministry.  A couple of points.  First, in
I Timothy 2, Paul addresses all men (in the ministry and not in the
ministry) and all women.  He makes no distinction that there are a group
in the ministry and a group not in the ministry.  Secondly, In I Timothy
2 he states that women are "saved in child birth".  I would invite your
understanding of this phrase before I go further but secondly I would
say this is a universal of all women not a convention of non-ministry
persons.  I do invite your understanding of the phrase because there are
other issues I want to address after I know where you stand on this
issue.

<Derick> The next issue is the context of the Corinthian verse.  In
verses 26-33, the text clearly states that there can be 2-3 speakers.
He outlines the criteria for who can speak.  It is that speaking in
which Paul says that a woman cannot speak.  He is giving order in the
church and clearly making an outline.  You want to insert "women except
ministers".  Paul does not say that.  He clearly says that there can be
2-3 speakers and then says, "Let your women keep silent, for they are
not permitted to speak."  Speak when and where?  During the situation in
verse 26-33.  Context.
>
> Pheobe (Romans 16:1-2): This woman was a deaconess of the church in
> Cenchrea, who was beloved of Paul and many other Christians
> for the help
> she gave to them. She filled an important position of leadership. It
> would be a difficult stretch of the imagination to say that
> this woman
> fulfilled her duties without ever speaking in the church!

<Derick> I love the Pheobe argument for a couple of reasons.  First,
people take the word deacon that is used a plethora of times in the
Bible and mostly not of the office of a deacon and try to make this one
say it is an office.  Secondly, there are better arguments for women
deacons than Pheobe.  Thirdly, it shows the ignorance of making such a
bold statement of the word "Deacon" in the Greek and making a bold
statement that this is the case with Pheobe.  I do not believe in women
deacons but I will grant you that there is a better case for women
deacons than women elders.  Yet, use the better arguments.  This one is
rather lame.
>
> Priscilla (Acts 18:26): Priscilla and her husband Aquila are often
> mentioned with great respect by Paul. Together they were pastors of a
> church in Ephesus, and were responsible for teaching the full
> gospel to
> Apollos. We are informed that they both taught Apollos, and
> pastored the
> church together.

<derick> They were Pastors?  This is what I call a perfect situation of
the cart pushing the horse.  You have a pressupposition and force it on
the text.  Can you offer any evidence for this assumption?
>
>
>
> In fact, Priscilla is sometimes listed ahead of Aquila when
> their names
> come up. This has led some to speculate that of the two, she was the
> primary teacher and her husband oversaw the ministry. At any
> rate, we see
> here a woman in a very prominent position of teaching and pastoring.

<Derick> Again, I agree Priscilla is listed first and there are good
reasons and Priscilla was a grea woman of God.  Yet, to say they were
Pastors is loaded and wrong.  They were not Pastors.  You are making the
cart push the horse in this situation.  Please exeget the text.
>
> (Other references to Priscilla and Aquila are Acts 18:2, 18; Romans
> 16:3, and I Corinthians 16:19).
>
> Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3): Here we see reference to two
> women who were "true yokefellow" and who labored with Paul in the
> advancement of the gospel.

<derick> Women who labored in the Gospel.  This does not advance your
argument nor tear down my own.  I believe there are great women in the
Bible.  What point are you trying to make?
>
> Junia (Romans 16:7): In this verse we see Paul sending greetings to
> Andronicus and Junia, his "fellow-prisoners" who are of note
> among the
> apostles. Junia is a woman's name. In some modern
> translations, an "s" has
> been added (Junias) because the translators were so sure a
> woman could
> not be an apostle, that they assumed a copyist has
> accidentally dropped
> the "s." However the proper male ending would have been "ius," not
> "ias." No church commentator earlier than the Middle Ages
> questioned that
> Junia was both a woman and an apostle.

<Derick> Again, this issue is a very debated point with both Junia and
the word apostle.  For clear purposes, she was not an apostle because
she could not meet the criteria outlined in the Bible for an Apostle.
Secondly, the word "apostle" is not just a title.  We have no record of
any other people being apostles than those listed in the Bible in church
history, including Junia.  The translation is tough because it could be
translated "Known among the apostles" or "known of the apostles".  Thus,
this is so much conjecture with no real support for your argument.  We
can debate the Greek if you want to get into it.
>
> Though there were other women throughout the Bible in positions of
> leadership, such as prophetesses, evangelists, judges,
> leaders, etc., the
> above references should be enough to establish that women
> were indeed a
> vital and normal part of church leadership. Paul expected women to
> speak in the church, or else why would he have given the following
> directive? It would have been useless to give directions for
> women who were
> speaking in the church, if they were never allowed to do so.
>
>
<Derick> No doubt, the issue is women in ministry and what they can do.

>
> I Corinthians 11:5, "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with
> her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even
> all one as if
> she were shaven."
>
<Derick> Look at the context, is this in the public worship service?
Secondly, is this a public prayer that is disallowed?  Do you know the
different forms of prophecy and how that relates to this text?  Prophecy
is multitiered and it seems you are not understanding the point.  We can
go into this later, but it is not clear this is to be done in a ministry
role.

> Furthermore, if Paul believed that all women should never teach or
> speak in church, why does he commend many women who did just that?

<Derick> He never did.  He did command them to not teach.
>
> With all this in mind, what then do we make of the troubling verses
> that command women to be silent in the churches? First of
> all, we must
> interpret those verses in light of what we have just
> established--that
> there were women in leadership positions of the church
>
<Derick> First, you offer no positive argument for your case.  In fact,
the greatest positive arguments usually made on your side you only refer
to one of them and don't even make that argument.  I have some questions
for you.

First, Is the office of Pastor/Elder/Bishop an Old Testament or New
Testamnt office in it's origin?

Secondly, Why does Paul move from talking about all women in I Timothy 2
to changing to the masculine tense in part of Chapter 3 only to move to
the feminine when talking about the wives of deacons?  If women can be
both Elders and Deacons, why did he need to include the feminine at that
pont?

Thirdly, how can a woman be the leader of her house, as required of an
Elder in I Timothy 3) in light of Ephesians 5:22-33?

Fourthly, do you believe that women were ever inferior to men?  I do not
believe they ever were but you seem to indicate that they, at one time,
were inferior.

Fifthly, Do you truly believe thorns and thistles now cease because of
Christ and women no longer have pain in childbirth?

I have a lot more but I have an appointment soon.

Derick

--
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: pastorsforum-unsubscribe@...

"In essential things, unity; in non-essential things, liberty; and in all 
things, charity."