Improve your sermon prep with our brand new study tools! Learn all about them here.
Preaching Articles

Lisa Morrison reminds us that the Bible is a "collection of masterpieces" and our preaching should reflect the variety of the text.  

Discussion Starter: Do you preach the same deductive sermon in every passage you preach--or do you consider the biblical genre you're preaching?

 

In answering the call to ministry, Lisa has served in numerous positions over the past 20+ years in the ministry: Youth, Children’s, Associate and Interim Pastor. In October 2008, she accepted the call to Pastor Discovery Church.

Lisa’s passion is teaching and preaching the Word of God and making it relevant and applicable for today’s listeners. Her love for learning about God and His Word has provided her with the opportunity to obtain three Master’s degrees from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and to teach for Eastern Nazarene College Nazarene Bible College and The Reynolds Institute.

Browse All

Related Preaching Articles

Talk about it...

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Some of you know my conviction on this! 1 Timothy 2:12-3:7 plus many other Scriptures!

Brien Sims

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Thank you for the reminder to watch Biblical genre. I will be doing 1 Samuel 16 and I think I will do it narratively now.

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Thanks, Lisa. Good reminder. And it's good to see yet another woman who has the courage to follow God's call, in the face of the usual gender bias! May God continue to bless your ministry! Pastor Sandy

Jimmie Don Willingham

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Insightful, helpful. Wait until everyone discovers that the book, being inspired by Omniscience, is of such a depth in its wisdom and clarity as by painful to comprehension. And yet it is worthwhile to make the effort and to pay the price to understand.

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

While she is Forrest that the genre affects how we preach, I wonder if its wise to take preaching advice from someone that is ignoring scripture. The bible prohibits her from being in the role she's in.

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 5, 2012

I'll bet Rev. Lisa never meant for her "discussion starter" to end up like this. I am amazed at the judgmental nature of some of the commments! (And for those of you who consistently quote scripture to make your point, isn't there a scripture for this?!! Judging, I mean. And how dare you tell the rest of us that we should not take advice from someone who is not following scripture! How do you know what is in her heart? And do you really believe that God refuses pastoral ministries from us women? What would you instruct a woman teacher who is conducting a class for women, and one of the ladies brings her husband? Do you interfere and stop that teacher, and bring in a man to finish the class? Sorry, but this has been building up in my heart since I first posted here a few days ago. And Rev Lisa, I apologize if you would prefer to fight your own battles, but if you go back and read some of the comments following the last few articles, you will see why I am now speaking out!

Christopher Holmes

commented on Jul 5, 2012

I would like to know what are the step's in preaching a genre sermon?

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Sandy says, "I am amazed at the judgmental nature of some of the commments! (And for those of you who consistently quote scripture to make your point, isn't there a scripture for this?!! Judging, I mean." You say what most unbelievers say when someone quotes the Bible. If you really understood what Jesus meant when He said this, you wouldn't use it as an argument. Are we not as preachers to point out sins? Are we judging when we say adultry is a sin? Are we not judging when we say drunkeness is a sin? Are we not judging when we say homosexuality is a sin? We are proclaiming what God has already JUDGED to be sin! What did Paul say to the church at Corinth? 1 Cor. 5:1-5 "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, HAVE JUDGED ALREADY, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and in my spirit, WITH THE POWER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Then read the same chapter verses 9-13. WOW pretty judgemental of Paul I guess you would say. What Jesus is saying when He says "Judge not" is that if I am guilty of say fornication, I have no right to condemn anyone else of fornication. Matt. 7:1-5. Look at what Jesus goes on to say in Matt. 7:15-16. Isn't that judging? That is why I quote Scripture when I make an argument. All I am doing is proclaiming what God has already said is wrong. So tell me what I am saying that is wrong when I quote 1 Timothy 2:12-3-7? Who am I judging when I say what God says in His Word? Please tell me.

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Yah....you're right, Sandy. It's such a travesty that we actually are concerned about whether or not those we take preaching advice from are actually adhering to what the Bible says. How silly of us!

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Dennis, you've referenced 1 Tim 2:12-3:7 on various occasions, so I'm going to go ahead and share with you my understanding of that text. I don't expect you to agree with me, of course, which is perfectly fine with me. But I do hope that you will at least give me a fair hearing. With that in mind, I'm going to be try to be as thorough as this type of forum allows, which means I will be posting several comments to present my argument. If you're going to respond, I ask that you allow me to finish before responding. I'm anticipating about four or five posts, but I'll let you know when I'm done. So, with those preliminary remarks out of the way, allow me to begin with some comments about how language works...

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

The purpose of language is to communicate meaning. Meaning is communicated through words, phrases, and sentences, which are interpreted based on context. Let me give you an example. If I were to ask you for the meaning of the word, "fast", what would you say? Probably the first thing that comes to mind is something moving quickly. But what if I say that someone is standing "fast on principle"? Well, then, the meaning of "fast" has changed! Now we interpret that word to mean that the person is not moving at all. Then, of course, "fast" can also refer to the practice of abstaining from food. So, in that one word, "fast," we see the possibility of three different interpretations, two of which are the complete opposite of each other! The same principle can be seen in the interpretation of phrases. If I am asked to "give someone a hand," what am I being asked to do? Again, depending on the context, I could be giving a person assistance, or giving them applause. Or, if the person and I are working at a department store, and we are putting together a mannequin, I could very well be giving them a body part! Context determines which of those possible meanings one is trying to communicate. So when we come to 1 Tim 2:12-3:7, it is not enough simply to assert that Paul tells women not to teach men, and that pastors must be the husband of one wife, and that's it, end of discussion. No, we need to take the time to understand what is the meaning of those words. And to understand meaning, we must first understand context. So let's take a look at some context, now...

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Let me begin this part by stating that I do see a biblical case for male leadership in the family (although I should note that I believe that that case historically has been misinterpreted and abused by men, even Christian men, to detriment of women). But I don't see enough evidence at this point to extrapolate this principle into leadership of men in general over women in general, or even of male leadership over women in the church. In Gen 3: 16, we see God telling Eve that her desire would be for her husband, not for men in general. There is nothing here to suggest a general submission of women to men; simply of Eve to her husband Adam. In fact, let me take a moment to respond to your explanation of Deborah's ministry. No, she was not a military leader, but that is irrelevant to my point. The fact is that she was a leader, she was a judge of Israel. She may not have led the army, but "the people of Israel came up to her for judgement" (Jgs 4:5). She had a position of authority over these "people," which presumably included men. Leadership and authority, both in Israel and in the NT Church, was never meant to be concentrated in one person. Leadership was always meant to be shared; and the fact is that in the case of Deborah, we see a woman sharing in that leadership. Furthermore, in Eph 5:22-33, we again see the case for a male leadership in the home, but that does not extrapolate to either society or the church. On the contrary, if Paul had wanted to establish male leadership in the church, he could written in v. 23, "For the husband is the head of the wife even as men are the head of the women in the church." But he does not write that. What he writes, rather, is that, "Christ is the head of the church." And the entire passage is introduced by Paul's instructions for all, both men and women, to submit to one another "out of reverence for Christ." There's much more that could be said on this issue, of course. But this serves enough of a context to show how I understand 1 Tim 2:12-15, to which we now turn...

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

1 Tim 2:12 reads, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." As I said earlier, the English word "fast" can have several meanings, depending on the context. If you are familiar with koine Greek, you will know that the same principle applies here as well. The Greek word translated as "woman" can also be translated as "wife." The Greek word translated as "man" can also be translated as "husband." In fact, the ESV uses those very alternate translations when translating those exact same words in 3:2. Based on the overall biblical context I outlined in my previous post, I see, here, a reaffirmation of the principle of male leadership in the home. Now, what exactly this verse means, I haven't worked it out yet to my satisfaction. My mental jury is still out deliberating the evidence. But I am reasonably sure that it does not mean a general prohibition of women teaching or exercising authority over men (again, see Deborah). N. T. Wright, by the way, offers another interpretation of this passage, as well as some overall thoughts on women in leadership in the church. You can find his paper here if you are interested:http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm. I don't agree with all his arguments, of course; but he is one of the most renown contemporary NT scholars, and his arguments merit careful evaluation. The point here is that 1 Tim 2:12-15, after careful study in context, does not (at least in my opinion) prohibit women from teaching or having authority over men. I see this passage, rather, dealing with wives and husbands. Let's look, then at 3:1-7...

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

The question, Fernando, is how a woman can possibly fill the role of a "One woman man". Now, you can go to great lengths to try to talk your way around it...but I can't see how that can be dealt with in any other way.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

We now come to the question, what did Paul mean when he wrote that an overseer must be the "husband of one wife." Well, again, let us look at the context. And what I discover in the context is that the qualities listed here are qualities of character (sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, etc.) and ability (able to teach, must manage his own household, etc.). That is significant, because both character and ability are things that we have a measure of control. If I am called by God to leadership in his Church, I can choose to develop the necessary character. I can choose to develop the necessary abilities. But if the emphasis of the phrase, "husband of one wife," is that the person must be male because only males can become husbands, then that would make this quality the only one in the entire passage that has nothing to do with either character or ability, but rather genetics. But that just doesn't make sense, in context. One cannot choose to be either male or female. It makes much more sense to place the emphasis of the phrase, "husband of one wife," not on the sex of the person, but on the character of the person, consistent with the other qualities. In other words, the person must be faithful to their spouse...

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

You're making some assumptions that I would not feel comfortable making. It could be that being male was the first requirement, and he must have the rest. How is that so difficult to understand?

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

And, so, there you have it. This is how I understand 1 Tim 2:12-3:7. Now, I don't expect either you or k b to agree with me. I could be wrong! I am not infallible! I welcome your comments and questions. I have tried to be as thorough as I could, but I'm also aware that I wasn't as precise as I would've liked to have been, so please bear that in mind. Such are the limitations of this forum. I'm not ignoring the Scriptures. Neither is Sandy C or Lisa Morrison, or most anyone else who disagrees with you on this issue. If I was convicted that your interpretation of the Scriptures on this topic was correct, and yet I chose not to believe it and to teach something to the contrary, that would be ignoring the Scriptures. But that is not what we are doing. We are wrestling with the Scriptures, depending on the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit to guide us. I used to believe as the two of you did. As recently as when I began in the pastoral ministry about twelve years ago. But the more I studied this issue through the Scriptures, the more I became convicted that I was wrong; and obedience to Christ demanded that I change my beliefs. But that has been my own journey. Like I said, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I don't expect either of you to act or speak contrary to your convictions. In fact, I suggest that you don't! But I do ask, humbly, for a little more respect, from both sides; for I know both sides are guilty of allowing our pride to make us speak in an unChristlike manner. At least, I speak for myself. Just continue to study the Scriptures, and I will do the same. If one or the other of us is wrong (or if both of us are wrong, which is certainly within the realm of possibility!), I trust that the Holy Spirit will convict us of the truth, as long as we continue to hold fast to the word of God.

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Fernando, what happens when someone come along and says that we should ordain homosexuals? Are we going to be told we're not Christlike because we take a stance? Or do we just agree to disagree? The problem that I have is that you ARE making some logical jumps in your reading of it. You are not simply taking what is written and going with it...you are concluding something different than what the text plainly says.

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Fernando - thank you for your remarks. I feel as if I have been sitting in a classroom, and should take notes! In addition, perhaps we should consider how it appears God made manifest His Will, and His Mind, concerning women. In the beginning, Gen 1:27 "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." and in 28 " Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." God joins them together in His own image, and makes no distinctions and differences as men do.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b, I requested the opportunity to make my case fully before you or Dennis would respond. Now that I have finished making my case, I will address your specific questions. Re: post #14--My post #15 looks into that question. Let me point out, though, that just because you can't see how a certain phrase can be understood in a different way, that doesn't mean that there isn't another way to understand it, and that others have not discovered a different way to understand it. It is dangerous to limit the meaning of Scripture only to what we can understand. If we could understand everything in Scripture perfectly, that would be the primary evidence that it was the work purely of man and not of God. Re: post #16--could you please point out what assumptions I am making that you are not comfortable with? Also, when you wrote: "It could be that being male was the first requirement, and he must have the rest," that is itself an assumption. What evidence do you have to support that assumption. Finally, as to your question, "How is that so difficult to understand?" It is because that assumption is not supported by the evidence of the context that I have laid out. There is no reason to make that assumption. If you have evidence for it, however, I'm certainly open to considering it.

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Fernando...I'm sorry for jumping the gun there. You ask what assumption you make? You state "It makes much more sense to place the emphasis of the phrase, "husband of one wife," not on the sex of the person, but on the character of the person, consistent with the other qualities."......I'm not sure we have the liberty to make that jump. The text says "husband of one wife"...starting with the assumption that the overseer would be a man. I don't know how we can get around that.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Sandy C, the mental outline I've been working out in my head over the last few days was much more extensive than what I ended up putting down in writing! There's so much more I wish I could've included. But this just goes to show how much we need each other. The word of God is too large to be limited to the voice of one person. What I leave unsaid, I can trust that God will say through someone else! The reference to Gen 1:27-28 is a valuable contribution to the discussion!

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b, since you began your questions before I finished making my argument, I feel that I'm a little bit behind. Give me a chance to catch up to you, and then you can continue...My next post will be in the next few minutes.

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b - In message 5, you say "The Bible prohibits her from being in the role she is in." So in effect, are you condemning her as sinfull. And subsequently, would that mean that all her congregants, and her husband, if she is married, are sinful as well? How far does this go? And if I, or any woman, is teaching Sunday School, at what point would you, or Dennis, remove the boys or young men from her class? At the age of 12? If I have a son, (and I have two, by the way), when am I not allowed to teach him the Bible? These practical issues, and I raised one earlier to which no one has responded, are real life, and according to your rules, will wreak havoc with families.

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Sandy, yes--you are sinning if you are holding a position of authority over men. The men in your congregation need to step up and be men--and lead. Now...regarding your home life...let's turn it around...is your husband the spiritual leader in your home? How does that work out? Is he the leader in the home, then he submits to you at church? The Bible tells us that the husband is the spiritual leader, his wife is his helpmate. Why would that not apply to children?

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b, Re: post #18--The reason why I don't see a Biblical case for homosexual pastors is because, as I understand it, (with the realization that others interpret this differently than I do) homosexuality is against the will of God. Being a woman, however, isn't. Furthermore, although I am willing to concede that some may be genetically predisposed to be homosexual, a person can choose not to engage in homosexual activity. A woman can't choose not to engage in "female activity"! Nor should she! I think lumping the two together misses this key distinction between the two issues. Also, regarding your phrase, "what the text plainly says," my post #11 deals with that issue in more detail. Let me know if there's anything there that is not quite clear. Re: post #21--You and I are both making assumptions, which is fine. It's normal. It's a necessary part of communication. Communication would be impossible if we had to spell everything out in detail every time we spoke! It is important, then, to examine our assumptions to see whether the evidence supports our assumptions or not. I'm assuming that the phrase, "the husband of one wife" is emphasizing character, rather than chromosomes! You wrote, "I'm not sure we have the liberty to make that jump." But I'm not making that jump just willy-nilly. My assumption is based on the evidence from the context--the fact that every other quality mentioned in 1 Tim 3:1-7 deals with either character or ability. Your assumption is that the phrase in question emphasizes the sex of the person. Now, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate what evidence, from the context, supports such an assumption.

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Fernando....I get what you're saying. First...the issue of homosexuality. I've seen people give detailed explanations of why they feel that the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible doesn't REALLY say homosexuality...but instead says straight people doing homosexual behavior. They go out of the way to make the argument that it is somehow not the same thing...and isn't what it says. Now, regarding your jump of "Husband" not really meaning husband.What does the text say? It doesn't say "person". It says husband. It starts with the assumption of a male. I don't know how else we can honestly read that.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b, I know Dennis' position on this, but I'd like to know your thoughts: was Deborah a sinner for being a judge in Israel?

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 5, 2012

I've been looking for this for a couple days, so here goes: In 2009, after more than 60 years together, Jimmy Carter announced himself at odds with the Southern Baptist Church - and he decided it was time they go their separate ways. He called his decision unavoidable after church leaders prohibited women from being ordained and insisted women be subservient to their husbands. Following is a quote from an essay in "The Age": "At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities." And later: "The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world."

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Fernando.....was Deborah a pastor? Do we have any OT qualifications to be a judge or a prophetess?

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Sandy....how is that even relevant to this discussion? So Jimmy decided to break with the Baptists over the issue? So what? Jimmy also believes in universalism. It's clear that the guy simply does not believe the Bible.

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b: the relevance begins with "the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men" and goes on from there. It couldn't be more clear.

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Sandy....are you're willing to ignore what the text says because you don't like the implications of it? It seems that you're saying that. But in any event, keep in mind that the text does NOT say that a woman should be beaten, abused, etc.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b, Re: post #27--I don't know if you read Shakespeare's Julius Caesar in high school. In that play, Mark Anthony begins a speech with the famous words: "Friends, Romans, country-men, lend me you ears." What does the text say? It doesn't say, "Pay attention to me." It says, "Lend me your ears." Mark Anthony is asking to borrow body parts from these people. That's what the text plainly says! But of course, that's not the what the text means! Just like the word "ears" (what simpler word is there in the English language than that!) in the phrase "Lend me your ears" does not mean a literal body part; based on the context; I don't see the word "husband" in the phrase "husband of one wife" as emphasizing male. Now, if you can't see it that way, that's fine. But some of us do see it that way. And it's not because we're ignoring the Scriptures or not being faithful to the Scriptures or not listening to the "plain meaning of the text." On the contrary, we are taking the Scriptures quite seriously, which is why we are not satisfied with superficial readings that don't take the context into account.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b, no, Deborah was not a pastor. But what you told Sandy C was the she was "sinning if you are holding a position of authority over men." You recognize that the overarching issue is not simply who can or cannot be a "pastor," but rather the issue is about authority and leadership. So, if in your words, it is a sin for a woman to hold a position of authority over men, was it then a sin for Deborah, a woman, to hold a position of authority over men by judging the people of Israel?

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Fernando...What possible command was Deborah violating? We have a direct command from Paul...we have no such statement in scripture at the time of Deborah. Paul was writing in regards to how to organize the church. I was responding to Sandy from the perspective of her working in a church. It would not apply to a woman that was in business, or even in a school setting--because that's not a church.

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b - Sorry, but my Bible says "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." It does not specify "in church".

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Sandy....we're talking about the qualifications for an overseer, right?

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 5, 2012

By the way, how's that for taking things out of context?

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b, you make some valid points. Keep in mind, however, that Deborah's authority was not simply a secular authority; it was a religious authority, as well. So, is it your assertion, then, that in Old Testament times God allowed women to exercise religious authority over his people; but then in New Testament times, God, through the writings of Paul, reversed himself and no longer allowed women to exercise religious authority over his people?

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b - (#38) nope - it's right before that.

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Sandy...look at the context. He was speaking of women learning--the setting was church. He then goes on to reference the order of creation -- meaning it's not a cultural issue.

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Fernando--yes, I'm asserting that at that particular time, in that particular place, God used Deborah as a civil leader and as a prophetess. We then see in Paul's writings that the qualifications for a pastor are that first of all, he is a man...then a bunch of other things regarding character, etc. I don't know how else to read this.

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Fernando--yes, I'm asserting that at that particular time, in that particular place, God used Deborah as a civil leader and as a prophetess. We then see in Paul's writings that the qualifications for a pastor are that first of all, he is a man...then a bunch of other things regarding character, etc. I don't know how else to read this.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b, well, fair enough. At least you are following your arguments to their logical conclusions; although I confess that's a very strange conclusion to reach. I have no clue why God would allow women to exercise religious authority over his people during one period of history, and then upon the establish of the NT church all of sudden he would push them aside! Moving on, though, you may have already stated this, and I may have missed it, but I don't think I've seen from you yet any evidence to support your assumption that the qualification of being "the husband of one wife" refers to the sex of the person rather than to their character. Why is it man first, and then character and ability? Why is the first qualification an exception to the rule? Could you please spell it out from the context a little more clearly?

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Fernando...we see prophetesses listed in the OT and NT. They are not pastors, though. As for your other statement about not understanding a "husband" as being a man? I'm not sure how else we can understand that. Unless you live in Vermont or NY, or some other state that allows it, men don't marry men.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b, there's a couple of issues that I'd like to explore with you. Let's take the first one step by step. In the context of Mark Anthony's speech that I referenced earlier, do you agree with me that when he says, "Lend me your ears," the word "ears" is not referring to a physical body part? Yes or no, and then we'll take it from there.

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

yes--i realize it was a figure of speech.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Great, then is it possible--I'm not saying whether or not it is the case, I'm just asking if it is possible--in a certain context for the word "husband" in the phrase, "the husband of one man," not to refer to a literal man?

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

If Paul was using a figure of speech, sure. BTW....I'm assuming you meant "husband of one wife".

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b, yes, thank you for catching that error! I meant, "of one wife." Now, here is my point: how do you know Paul wasn't using a figure of speech? You see, you recognized Shakespeare's figure of speech easily because he wrote in (albeit very old) English, and in fact he was the one who introduced that particular figure of speech into the English language. But Paul didn't write in English, he wrote in koine Greek. If you were to learn a foreign language, you would need to be careful to learn how to recognize figures of speech in the foreign language, and you would learn that based on context. So, based on the context, I interpret the phrase, "the husband of one wife," as a figure of speech, by which Paul means, "faithful to their spouse." And I do so, not arbitrarily, but because (1) I find no compelling evidence in Scripture promoting exclusive male leadership in the church, (2) I do find many examples, in both the OT and NT, of women in positions of spiritual authority over men, and (3) in the immediate context of 1 Tim 3:1-7, every single other qualification for the overseer deals with either character or ability, and there is no reason to consider the first qualification as an exception. That is my evidence for interpreting the phrase as a figure of speech. Now, the question I have for you, is what evidence do you have, other than simply repeating, "A husband is a man, a husband is a man," for believing that the phrase, "the husband of one wife," is not a figure of speech.

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Fernando...are you suggesting that you are able to say that it was a figure of speech? Can you definitively say beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was? I'd rather stick to what the text actually says.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 5, 2012

As far as Deborah goes, please show me from what the Bible ACTUALLY says, not what you want it to say. I will once again paste what I have wrote before, please tell me where I am wrong based ONLY ON WHAT THE TEXT SAYS! Let me go ahead and answer the question of Priscilla, Deborah, and Hulda. First Priscilla. She and her husband PRIVATELY taught Apollos "the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:24-28). The Bible does not prohibit women from teaching other women (Titus 2:3-4) or from teaching children (1 Timothy 2:15, 5:10) But Paul ABSOLUTELY reserved the teaching role in the church for men (1 Timothy 2:12-3:7). Deborah's role was not that of head but of messenger. Did she exercise a headship role? Since the prophetic role did not involve headship, prophecying by a woman, such as Deborah, did not violate the principle of male headship, as long as she did it in a proper manner and demeanor that did not negate male headship. The prophetic ministries of Deborah and Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20) differ greatly from those of male prophets, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Male prophets exercised their prophetic ministry in a public manner, being commisioned to proclaim the Word of the Lord before people and the king himself (Is 6:9, 7:3, 58:1; Jer. 1:10, 2:2, 7:2; Ezek. 2:3, 6:2). The prophetic ministry of Deborah and Huldah was significantly different from this. Deborah did not go out and publicly proclaim the Word of the Lord. Instead, individuals came to consult her privately under the palm tree where she sat (Jud. 4:5). She did not exercise her prophetic ministry in a public forum like the Old Testamant male prophets. God did not call Deborah to lead an army into battle, He told her to remind Barak that He had called him to do so. Judges 4:6-7. It is significant that she did not assume the headship role of an army general; she conveyed God's call to Barak to serve in that capacity. She then rebuked Barak for his unwillingness to go to battle without her. Verse 8-9. Notice it was Barak not God that wanted her to go with him. Because of his reluctance, Deborah warned Barak that "the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman" But the woman who earned the glory by killing Sisera while he slept in her tent was not Deborah but Jael. Judges 4:17-22. Let me add Miriam. She ministerd only to women (Ex. 15:20-21. So in conclusion: It is in perfect harmony with Scripture for women to instruct in the privacy of their home or in Sunday school to other women or children. She has the perfect right to win souls. But when it comes to matters of business in the church, God appointed men to take care of the affairs of the church, to pastor, to serve as deacons, and stewards of the church, and elders and teachers insofar as men are concerned. This doesn't make women second class citizens. It doesn't mean we're better or smarter for that matter. It is simply the way in which God ordered things.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b, of course I can't say definitively beyond a shadow of a doubt that the phrase is a figure of speech. If I had everything in the Bible completely figured out beyond a shadow of a doubt, what'd be the point of continuing to study the Bible? What I'm saying is that this is where the evidence is leading me, and if after further study of the Bible I discover evidence that leads me in a different direction, then, again, obedience to Christ demands the I follow. On the other hand, you can't say definitely beyond a shadow of a doubt that the phrase is not a figure of speech. You can't even offer one piece of evidence that it is not a figure of speech, even though I've asked you repeatedly, and even though I've offered my own evidence several times already. As far as "what the text actually says," if the phrase is in fact a figure of speech--and I've given you evidence that it is, and you have not given me evidence that it's not--and you don't recognize it as a figure of speech, then you are not listening to "what the text actually says." But I think it's time to move on, though. It occurs to me the main reason for our disagreement on this point is that you are reading the text as if Paul was writing in 21st century American English (or 17th century British English if you used the KJV), while I'm reading it as if Paul was writing in 1st century koine Greek. Until we get on the same page here, there's not much more we can do. I'd like to move on to the fact that you keep coming back to the argument that prophets are not pastors. Indeed they are not. I find it significant, however, that the word "pastor" as you and I are using it appears only once in the NT, and it's not here (the office being discussed in 1 Tim 3:1-7 is that of the "overseer")--it is in Eph 4, where the office of pastor is listed along with that of the prophet, incidentally. I also find it significant that in that passage in Eph 4, there are no qualification listed for any of those offices (apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor/teacher). So, my question for you, then, is this: on what basis do you justify taking the qualifications of an overseer from 1 Tim 3:1-7, and apply them to the pastor of Eph 4?

Keith B

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Actually, Fernando...I'm reading it in the Greek---the original. It says "one woman man". It's clear that Paul thought an overseer would be a man. I'm sorry...I can't see a different way to read it. In any event...I'm going to bed. I have to get up in about 7 hours...so I'm done for tonight.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Fernando, first I do not see how you can say that Genesis 3:16 is only talking about Eve. Was the curse placed on the serpent only for THE serpent that allowed Satan to enter into it, or do we see today that ALL serpents move upon their belly? Is verse 15 talking about Eve being the woman who would give birth to the Savior or was it talking about Mary? Was Adam the only one who has had hard labor? Was only the ground he tilled cursed? Is he the only one who was to return to the ground as dust? I really don't understand how you come to the conclusion that Eve was the only one God was talking to in verse 16.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Dennis, you keep acting as if repeating that post should put an end to all argument. It doesn't. I'm sorry. I hate to tell you this, but you're just not that good. You make some valid points, of course, but you've also got some significant holes in your argument. For example, you assume the principle of male headship for the people of God, but you do not provide any evidence for that assumption, and I have found none in my study of Scripture. What I have found, on the contrary, is the principle of divine headship for the people of God. God, himself, intended to be king of Israel; and when Israel asked for a man to be king so that they could be like "all the nations", it was rightly interpreted by God as a rejection of his kingship (1 Sam 8:4-8). Incidentally, I often wonder if we have not done the same thing by the way we and our church members have elevated the pastoral ministry in the celebrity culture of 21st century North America! Moving on to the NT, we find in the Gospels Jesus saying the following: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me," (Matt 28:18); "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ" (Matt 23:8-10). And, as I mentioned earlier, Paul declares that "Christ is the head of the church," and, "the church submits to Christ" (Eph 5:23). So it is divine headship, not male headship, that is the leadership paradigm of God's church. Christ is the head. He holds all authority. And he exercises that authority through whomever he will. Also, you keep characterizing the ministries of Deborah, Huldah, and Priscilla as private, rather than public. But that is irrelevant. Whether it was private or public, the point is that these women exercised authority. 1 Tim 2:12, reads "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man..." It does not add, "in public, but they may do so in private." That is a distinction that you are reading into the text in order to explain these women's ministries. As far as your claim that "Paul ABSOLUTELY reserved the teaching role in the church for men," well, that was the subject of the several lengthy posts I made earlier today. You are welcome to comment on them as you wish. So, while I appreciate and respect your convictions, your arguments in support of those convictions are not enough to settle the question once and for all.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

k b, I hope you get sufficient rest. I've appreciated your conversation today; at least for my part, it has been quite helpful to me. I do hope you consider the words you use when describing those who disagree with you, but for the most part, our conversation has been cordial; and for that, I am grateful. Just in case you follow-up here tomorrow morning: yes, I'm aware of the Greek in 1 Tim 3:2. And as I said, those two words can be translated as "husband" and "wife" respectively. Either way, it does not eliminate the possibility of the phrase being a figure of speech. I've provided evidence that it is. You've provided no evidence that it isn't. We'll just have to leave it at that. I wish you God's continued blessing on you and your ministry! Don't worry too much about what I say. I'm just a man, like any other man. Listen to God's voice, and stay true to him.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Dennis, re: Gen 3:16--No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that God was speaking only to the woman when he included submission to her husband as part of the curse; although he was speaking primarily to the woman. What I'm saying is that the curse that was intended was the submission of a wife to her husband, not the submission of women to men in general.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Again, just to clarify, I do see a biblical case for male headship within a family, based on this and other texts, with the acknowledgment that such a position can be abused and historically has been abused. It is important to understand what male headship in a family actually means. However, I have found no evidence to suggest that that principle should be extrapolated to the church at large. Again, Christ, not men, is specifically identified as the head of the church (Eph 1:22; 5:23; Col 1:18).

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Now I will come to the real issue. How do we know that 1 Timothy 2:12-3-7 is talking about the role of leadership for men in the church? Verses 13-14 are the key. Verse 14 Adam's sin and Eve's sin are presented as being VERY different from each other: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Adam was disobedient, whereas Eve was deceived. To really understand this, again you have to go back to the begining. Adam was created first, then Eve was formed from Adam. Adam was given the headship. We see this stated also in 1 Cor. 11:3. The man was created to be ruled by his head, and the woman was created to be ruled by her heart. We see this played out when men and women have an argument. There is an essential difference between the man's approach to issues and the woman's approach. Of course the fact that a woman is ruled by her heart doesn't mean that women cannot think. And the fact that a man is ruled by his head doesn't mean that a man cannot feel. Generally speaking, though, a man's center of action is his mind, and a woman's is her heart. In the temptation of Adam and Eve, Satan twisted God's order. The Devil first aimed his temptation at Eve's head and engaged her in intellectional discussion as to whether it was right for her to do something that God had said was wrong. Eve's only defense was the Word of God. So Satan's first words were an outright attack on it. He asked the first question in human history: "Yea, hath God said...?" Satan attacked the Word in three ways. First, he questioned the authority of God's Word. "Yea, hath GOD said?" In other words, "How do you know that it really is the Word of God? After all, you weren't there when this supposed Word of God was given." Then Satan attacked the accuracy of God's Word: "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of EVERY tree of the garden?" In other words, "How do you know that the Word is an accurate and inerrant account of what God said? After all, you have only what has been handed down to you. You do not have the original. How do you know that something hasn't been lost in the transmission?" The third attack was on the acceptability of the Word of God. Satan directed Eve's gaze toward the forbidden fruit and filled her mind with longing. She "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasent to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise" (Gen. 3:6). The Devil persuaded her that it was simply unacceptable for her to listen to a supposed demand from God that interfered with her independance and prevented her from doing whatever she wanted. So Eve was deceived - cleaverly deceived, but deceived nonetheless. Continued in next posting.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 5, 2012

Eve was vulnerable to Satan's attack because she handled the Word of God carelessly. Her Bible only had two verses, but it was quite adequate. It said, "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" Gen. 2:16-17. To each of Satan's suggestions. Eve only had to say, "Thus saith the Lord," and Satan would have been unable to subvert her. Instead she was careless. She made three mistakes when she quoted God's Word. Twice she subtracted from the Word, and once she added to it. Satan knew from the way she handled Scripture that she could be deceived and defeated easily. So, in effect, Eve abandoned the original text of Scripture and used a paraphrase, a version she made up herself. Many modern "translations" of the Bible do the same thing. They leave things out, put things in, and generally distort the Word of God. When Eve left out the word "freely," she minimized God's goodness. When she left out "surely," she minimized the severity of God and the certainty of punishment. When she added "neither shall she touch it," she exaggerated the one restriction that God had given her. The closer we look at Eve's careless handling of God's Word, the more we see the serpent's subtlety in addressing her intellect and in doing so appealing to her vanity. When she ate the forbidden fruit, she showed that she thought her own opinion was more valid than God's Word. As Paul wrote to Timothy, she was "deceived." Satan directed his temptation to Eve's head and won. That is God's reason for His prohibition against women teachers in the church. Adam was not deceived. He knew exactly what he was doing. He was disobedient, and we see in Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Verse 19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..." So just as Adam's sin caused the fall of all mankind, Eve's sin caused women to be excluded from having authority over men in the church.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 5, 2012

And yes 1 Timothy 2:12-3:7 is speaking about leadership in the church. I am sure you are aware that there are no verses and chapters in the original writings. Thus

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Dennis, wow, umm...I don't know how to respond. I'm not quite sure I'm following your logic. Maybe it's because it's late. Maybe I'm tired. Maybe you're tired. Who knows? All I know is, I'm not sure how you got from A to B. Perhaps you'd be willing to break it down a little more for me. In the meantime, let me just give some initial reactions. First, 1 Cor 11:3 reads, "[T]he head of a wife is her husband." Again, that is a reference to the relationship of a husband and a wife within the family. I believe you and I are in agreement on this point, but I don't see anything in the context or in the rest of the Bible to suggest that that same principle should apply to men and women in general in the church. I have found no text that describes men as head of the church. You wrote: "The man was created to be ruled by his head, and the woman was created to be ruled by her heart." I don't know where you got that from. I'm not seeing it in 1 Cor 11. Perhaps you could provide a reference? You wrote, "Adam was disobedient, whereas Eve was deceived." A couple of thoughts on that. N. T. Wright points out in the article I referenced earlier that because it was the woman who was deceived,that is why Paul gave instructions for the women to "learn quietly with all submissiveness" (1 Tim 2:11). The idea here is that so that they would not be deceived like Eve. As for Adam, a case could be made that his sin of disobedience was significantly worse than Eve being deceived. As you said, he knew what he was getting himself into. You quoted Rom 5:12, 19 accurately, but how you got from Adam's sin leading to the fall of mankind to, "Eve's sin caused women to be excluded from having authority over men in the church," I'm clueless. That's not anywhere in Rom 5. That's just not a logical inference from anything you've been arguing! Finally, as to your comments regarding modern translations, I'm not going anywhere near that debate with you! Either you are KJV-Preferred, in which case I respect that position, and I'm not familiar enough with textual criticism to argue intelligently for or against the accuracy of its underlying manuscripts; or you are KJV-Only, in which case experience has taught me that arguing against that position is a complete waste of time. Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. Maybe I'm missing something. Feel free to clarify yourself if you want, or to respond to anything I've written thus far. Otherwise, I suppose we can leave it at that. I think I've made my position quite clear. You can quit complaining that no one will give you an alternate explanation of 1 Tim 2:12-3:7. Whether you want to accept that explanation or not I leave up to you.

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Dennis, of course the original Greek had no chapter or verse divisions. That does not mean that 1 Tim 2:12-15 necessarily goes with 3:1-7. In fact, it appears to me that the paragraph should actually start with verse 8, so that 2:8-15 are a complete unit. Then in 3:1, with Paul writing, "The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspire to the office of overseer..." He seems to shift emphasis to church leadership, as he goes on to describe the qualifications for overseers and deacons. It is not clear that he is talking about church leadership before 3:1, but it is very clear that he is talking about church leadership from 3:1 and following.

Michael Morton

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Dennis, I appreciate your conviction and the points you make from scripture. The problem I am having is following the logic you are using. Often times I can't see how the points you make relate to the conclusions you draw. May I suggest you rethink how to phrase your arguments so they are a little more understandable. I am enjoying this discussion and I still wrestle with this problem personally although my denomination settled this issue quite a few years ago by recognizing ordination of women as a right and scriptural thing to do. I'm not enough of a scholar to read the closest to the original writings but after reading many different versions of the NT it seems scholars don't agree on many details concerning what scripture is in all circumstances. I find it difficult in this case (women leadership) to talk in absolutes. Be well and blessed.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Fernando, I think you would agree that men and women are made up differently. God created Eve to complete Adam. Whereas men make decisions with their head, many times women make decisions based on their heart. Women are more emotional than men generally speaking. This isn't meant to be a putdown to women, and it certainly doesn't mean that she doesn't think or that men don't have feelings. Again, God created us differently. If men and women were the same there would be no need for the other. 1 Timothy 2:13 says that Adam was created first. Eve was taken out of the man. Again, an order was established. The context of 1st Timothy is the order of the church, not the order of the home. That is why 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus are called the Pastoral Epistles. That is why 1 Tim 2:12-15 are connected to 3:1-7. God was giving Timothy instructions through Paul how the church was to be run, not the home. If God didn't mean that because Eve was deceived because she handled the Word of God carelessly and because of that Eve's sin caused women to be excluded from having authority over men in the church, then why did God put verses 13-14 in? In the context of the Book it all flows logically. As far as men abusing their position in both the home and church, yes of course that happens. But that doesn't mean that God was wrong in giving these commands, just that men are wrong for abusing those commands.

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 6, 2012

"God created Eve to complete Adam"?? Still searching for this - can you please point me in direction of this scripture? Gen 2:20 "for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him." And in v. 18 "And the Lord God said 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Dennis, yes, I agree that there are differences between men and women. But Scripture demonstrates that these differences do not inherently disqualify women from serving in positions of leadership among the people of God. It has been my position that the qualifications of 1 Tim 3:1-7 emphasize character and ability, not sex. Neither you nor k b have refuted the evidence that I have presented in support of my position. Now, you wrote: "Whereas men make decisions with their head, many times women make decisions based on their heart. Women are more emotional than men generally speaking." A couple of thoughts on that claim. First, that very well may be true, but now you are making a sociological case for male leadership in the church, not a Biblical one. You provided no evidence from Scripture to support such a claim. Of course, you are free to make a sociological case if you want to, just as long as you don't pretend it's a Biblical case by trying to infer conclusions from the Bible that the Bible does not imply. Second, however, let's assume that your claim that men generally make decision from their head while women generally make decisions from the heart is correct. I would argue, then, that that is precisely the reason for why women should be included in leadership. The head is not inherently better than the heart, and making decision from the head is not inherently better than making them from the heart. Both the head and the heart is needed; and if your claim is correct, then both men and women are needed in leadership. Take, for example, our exchange from last week after I got back from burying my father. First, I want to take a moment to apologize for the harsh tone of my initial post. Despite my emotional state of mind at the time, I shouldn't have written the way I wrote, and I am very sorry that I did so. But it was an emotional moment, and it required an emotional response. I was struck by the weird, "cold logic" of your reaction to what I wrote. You felt that I had lashed out on you, so you felt naturally justified in lashing out on me. Sounds logical. And since you were lashing out on me, you felt that it was inappropriate to express sympathy at the same time. Well, that makes sense. That, too, is logical. So, that was the "head" decision that you made. But the "heart" decision, the emotional response, was to say, "OK, this guy is obviously in grief, he's not in a good state of mind right now; so I'm not going to take it personally, I'm not going to lash back out, I'm not going to argue. I'm simply going to express my sympathy, and leave it at that." Now, I'm not saying this to justify myself. I admit that I was wrong, and I realize that I got what I deserved in your response to me. I'm just using this experience to demonstrate that oftentimes, in an emotional context such as dealing with someone in grief, it is the emotional decision, not the logical one, that is the wisest decision. There is a significant element in leadership that involves emotion, that involves the heart. And by your own claim, men are, generally speaking, not as capable of dealing with the emotional element of leadership as are women. So if we're going to argue sociology, why would we eliminate women from leadership in the church when we need the advantage that they have over us to know how to consider the emotional aspects of leadership and help us to make the wisest decisions?

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Dennis, you wrote, "[T]hen why did God put verses 13-14 in?" This is from N. T. Wright's article that I referenced earlier: "Why then does Paul finish off with the explanation about Adam and Eve? Remember that his basic point is to insist that women, too, must be allowed to learn and study as Christians, and not be kept in unlettered, uneducated boredom and drudgery. Well, the story of Adam and Eve makes the point well: look what happened when Eve was deceived. Women need to learn just as much as men do. Adam, after all, sinned quite deliberately; he knew what he was doing, and that it was wrong, and went ahead deliberately. The Old Testament is very stern about that kind of action." That's as good of an explanation as I have come across. I do agree with you that "Eve was deceived because she handled the Word of God carelessly." However, it does not necessarily follow that "because of that Eve's sin caused women to be excluded from having authority over men in the church." I'm going to need to see some clear biblical evidence to justify such an inference.

John Mury

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Dennis Cocks and others, can't Lisa Morrison get a conversations started without hijacking it? Even if you think a woman isn't allowed to preach, can't she start a conversation about genre-based communication of the text? Even if you think she isn't allowed to preach, can't she at least talk about preaching? I think Priscilla was allowed at least that freedom. Maybe you don't let your own wife preach but is she also not permitted to evaluate your sermon and give you pointers on how to make it better the next time?

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Sandy, God said "It is not good that man should be alone." Gen 2:18. He was missing something. Then God called Adam to name all the animals for the purpose of showing him that each creature had its mate. He had none. 2:19-20 Then after God put Adam to sleep He took Eve from his side and brought her to him. The we read in verse 24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto His wife: AND THEY SHALL BE ONE FLESH." We see this repeated in Eph. 5:31. So if God says that a husband and wife become one when they marry, doesn't that mean that we are incomplete without each other? And before you ask me about single people, again, GOD said it wasn't good for man to be alone, not me.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Fernando says, "First, that very well may be true, but now you are making a sociological case for male leadership in the church, not a Biblical one. You provided no evidence from Scripture to support such a claim." I did make a biblical case by stating that God created men and women different. Just because He doesn't spell it out for us doesn't mean He didn't create us this way. Take our differences physically, God doesn't spell them out either, but they are there nonetheless. And you say "There is a significant element in leadership that involves emotion, that involves the heart. And by your own claim, men are, generally speaking, not as capable of dealing with the emotional element of leadership as are women. So if we're going to argue sociology, why would we eliminate women from leadership in the church when we need the advantage that they have over us to know how to consider the emotional aspects of leadership and help us to make the wisest decisions?" I agree. That is why I believe that a single man should not pastor a church, as 1 Tim 3 says. He needs his wife's help. My wife is paramount to my pastorate. I couldn't do this without her. I am no better than her or any other woman. The issue is that someone has to be in leadership and God has given that role to men. Again, it doesn't make Him better, that is just the way God saw fit to order it. And the way He ordered it has to do with what happened in creation and the fall. You believe that 1 Tim 3:1-7 speaks of character not necessarily leadership. I know you will be shocked, but I disagree. I believe that God wrote what He meant when He said, "The husband of one wife."

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 6, 2012

John Mury, you and anyone else are free to skip what I say.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 6, 2012

And by "paramount" I mean vital.

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 6, 2012

John Mury - I agree with you. As a matter of fact, I apologized to Lisa in #6. This should have been a good discussion on preaching narratively, and Biblical genre. Instead, we go back to the same old gender discussion. I frankly would have benefited more from the intended discussion. Perhaps someone, you perhaps, could begin what Rev. Lisa started/suggested.

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 6, 2012

To all: forgot to mention in my last comment: I have truly enjoyed all the discussion. I may not be in agreement with it all, but the opposing views are illuminating!

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 6, 2012

To all: forgot to mention in my last comment: I have truly enjoyed all the discussion. I may not be in agreement with it all, but the opposing views are illuminating!

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Dennis, you misunderstood what I said about 1 Tim 3:1-7. I didn't say that the passage was about character and not leadership. The passage is, indeed, about leadership. What I said was that the qualifications for leadership in 1 Tim 3:1-7 were about character and ability, not sex. If you're going to disagree, make sure you actually understand what I'm saying. And I also "believe that God wrote [through Paul] what He meant when He said, 'The husband of one wife.'" The question I've been posing is, what did Paul in fact mean? If Paul did not mean that phrase as a figure of speech, then you're interpretation is correct. However, if Paul did mean that phrase as a figure of speech, and I've shown plenty of evidence to suggest that he did, then your interpretation is wrong; and reading that phrase literally, "just to be on the safe side" as has been suggested, is misguided. Finally, as to your continued assertion that "someone has to be in leadership and God has given that role to men," I just don't see the evidence for that in Scripture. You're simply accepting that assumption as fact and then shaping Scripture to fit that assumption.

Gene Cobb

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Thank you Pastor Lisa for your comments. Good points. I have been in the ministry for 30 years now and when I started out in the ministry a wise pastor told me, "don't ever be so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good." I feel that you are making that point also. Thanks. Also hello to Sandy! God bless, Pastor LaFern (oh, and by the way I am a woman!)

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Pastor LaFern - glad to see you back! I wish more women would participate, then perhaps some of us wouldn't be so reticent. Thank you for your comment - sometimes we forget that we are servant-leaders. God bless us every one! And Lisa, am looking forward to hearing more from you!

Fernando Villegas

commented on Jul 6, 2012

Well, I've got a busy weekend ahead of me, so I'll make my departure from this conversation now. It's been stimulating. Blessings to all of you in your respective ministries this weekend!

John Mury

commented on Jul 7, 2012

Dennis Cocks, you say that I and anyone else are free to skip what you say. Noted. But that logic can excuse all kinds of trash that passes for discourse on the internet. By logical extension, you could post spam or porn and justify it with the same excuse. I expect better of Christians, especially pastors. Your comments are entirely off-topic and do not address anything that Lisa Morrison said. If you want to discuss something else, feel free to create your own forum or blog. Hijacking a discussion towards your own ends is not justifiable and crowds out the possibility of having a productive, on-topic discussion. Create your own audience; don't pirate someone elses. Please accept responsibility for your actions. You were the very first comment and immediately steered the discussion off-course to issues not raised here at all. Did you even listen to Lisa Morrison's discussion starter? I'm guessing you commented without even extending that grace.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 7, 2012

John Mury, that is fine, I can see where you are coming from although I don't completely agree. To me this was not "off topic" because although others disagree, I don't believe that she should be speaking as a pastor or preacher. And even though you may not have liked the discussion we had, some did benefit from it, even Sandy who strongly disagrees with me said she enjoyed the discussion because it illuminated her to opposing views. So people were free to listen to the video or comment on the video or read or participate in the discussion and both could benefit from whatever one or both they wished. Again, although when we write it doesn't always come off the way we are thinking in our heads, I try very hard to keep it civil even if I fail at times.

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 7, 2012

Dennis - my comment about opposing views being illuminating was not meant to indicate a positive feeling. It is good to know that gender-bias is alive and well, and helps me to be more cautious about who I share with! Now can someone please elaborate about Lisa's deductive sermons as regards the Biblical genre? Would love to hear more about that. Blessings.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Jul 8, 2012

Sandy says, "To all: forgot to mention in my last comment: I have truly enjoyed all the discussion. I may not be in agreement with it all, but the opposing views are illuminating!" Wow! I must be pretty dumb! How in the world did I EVER think that you enjoyed the discussion? I guess I just can't understand what anyone actually means when they write something on here! But it's good to know that a few people on here actually believe what the Bible teaches about the issue of male leadership being biblical and that it is alive and well!

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 9, 2012

Enjoy - one of the meanings is "to have the use or benefit of." Illuminate - "to enlighten." You make the point, Dennis, that Fernando has made over and over: I enjoyed your comments, as I said, because they were of a benefit. I also enjoyed Lisa's comments, but in a completely different way! Your comments were illuminating in a somewhat negative way. Lisa's comments made me want to hear more. Hope that clarifies!

Pastor Sandy .

commented on Jul 9, 2012

Greetings, all. In my curiosity, I found a series of articles by Dr. Tim White "How to Preach Narratives with Variety." His Part 1 speaks of three general sermonic forms: Deductive, Inductive, and the Inductive/Deductive sermons. He then proceeds to give us sample outlines, explaining each form. Interesting article! May be found at DrTimWhite.com.

Join the discussion