Women leading the early church? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

Ms. Prata recycles her belief yet again about women not teaching/leading. However, in this article she is particularly superficial and at times spectacularly wrong. In addition, she barely manages to quote the Bible. How is it possible to be a Bible teacher and hardly quote it?

We certainly have our own opinions about the subject, but our intent is to examine Ms. Prata's presentation and expose its many flaws.

----------------- 

(...)

But back to women and godly roles. It is obvious from plain reading of the Bible that women are not to preach in church. We see in 1 Timothy 2:12,

But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (We have discussed this verse in detail here. Suffice to say, the verse is not talking about preaching in church, it is about "a woman" teaching [not preaching to] "a man.")

And then to remove any discussion of present time or culture or temporariness, some common excuses, Paul cites the creation order, For it was Adam who was first formed, and then Eve. 

He did so again in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9,

For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man. For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.

No woman was a pastor of any church in the Bible. (Argument from silence. In addition, no verses in the Bible tell us anything about anyone being named a pastor in a church.)

No woman had ongoing authority over any man (except Deborah, as Israel’s only female JUDGE, not preacher, (A preacher is never described in the Bible, and no preacher is ever described as a leader.

Further, since Israel was governed by judges, that make Deborah a leader:

Ju. 4:4 Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time.

And Deborah is a prophetess. That fact alone means trouble for Ms. Prata's doctrine. A prophecy of Deborah is actually recorded in Scripture [Judges 5]. Later Ms. Prata will claim that no woman ever wrote Scripture. Yet here we have a prophetess prophesying, and it was written down.

Ms. Prata is factually and biblically wrong.)

was an exception to a normative rule, (That's a pretty big exception. 

Deborah is a legitimate example of woman leadership specifically described in the Bible, so Ms. Prata cannot make it an "exception to a normative rule" simply because the Bible is silent elsewhere.)

and was given the role likely to shame men- Isaiah 3:12.) (Let's quote the verse:

Is. 3:12 Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. O my people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path.

It is quite a stretch to conclude that Deborah was a judge for the purpose of God shaming Israel. In fact, when reading the account of Deborah we find no hint at all that she shamed Israel or that she did anything other than lead with righteousness.)

No woman wrote any part of the Bible. (What does Ms. Prata mean by writing the Bible? Did women physically write down words that became the Bible? We don't know who actually wielded the pen. 

Does not having a book described as being authored by a woman mean women didn't write Scripture? We don't know who wrote Esther or Ruth. Esther is about Esther, and Ruth is about Ruth, but who wrote the words? We just don't know.

Or did women speak God's word and have it written down? Ah. This is in fact quite true. There are many women whose words and prophecies were recorded in the Bible, like Deborah mentioned above. Thus to say that no woman "wrote" any part of the Bible is demonstrably false.)

No woman was a priest. (What happened in ancient Israel does not speak to the new covenant. 

Later Ms. Prata will acknowledge the low estate of women in ancient times. So she tells us that no woman was a priest when no woman could be a priest.)

But it is interesting to see how today’s ladies who want to rebelliously twist the Bible into saying things it doesn’t. (Based on a single verse misinterpreted (1 Timothy 2:12) Ms. Prata extends her bad reasoning into other verses which could be interpreted differently if read apart from her doctrine.) 

It would be funny to see all these pretzel verses, if it wasn’t so tragic.

I saw on Twitter last week some women who Beth Moore whipped up and then flicked into off into fantasyland with outspoken but wrong ideas of women’s leadership in the early church. Beth does this so well, wind women up. Here is Beth’s tweet,

Notice the analytics. 63,000 people engaged with her tweet in one way or another. This is also tragic and it is why I write about her like this. She INFLUENCES negatively. A Mr. Robert Fletcher commented,

At best, @BethMooreLPM doesn’t seem to understand the difference between evangelism and teaching/having authority over men in the church. At worst, she does understand it, and she is purposefully drawing a straw man to further deceive her followers. Either way, she is eisegeting.”

The only options are Beth’s ignorance, or her deception. But women get whipped up when Moore disingenuously comments about women along these lines. One replied to Beth Moore,

Sarah went on to present verses about Chloe, Priscilla, Phoebe and ‘the elect lady’ who were allegedly “leading” the early church.

First of all, (there will be no "second of all.")

the Bible says women are not to lead. (That would be 1 Timothy 2:12, which Ms. Prata repeatedly appeals to.)

And don’t @me about Deborah. She was the clear exception to the rule, she wasn’t a king, Priest, or scribe, and she was installed to shame the men. (Ms. Prata repeats her false and misleading claims.)

It was about men’s weakness, not women’s strength or ability

The word “lead” is incorrectly used. (What does Ms. Prata think the word "lead" means? Is it to be in charge? Is it to be the boss? Is it to be a pastor? 

Or perhaps being a leader means having responsibility or even some authority? What if Chloe, Priscilla, Phoebe and ‘the elect lady’ were mentioned in Scripture because of their honorable service in the Church as they discharged their duties and performed their responsibilities diligently? How about these women:

Ro. 16:12 Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord.

But for Ms. Prata, being a leader means being the top dog. Such a concept is not found in the Bible's description of church leadership.)

We’ll start with Chloe. Chloe didn’t lead. We know next to nothing about this women. She actually was not even specifically named! The verse in 1 Corinthians 1:11 names only that some from her household let Paul now of strife at Corinth. That’s it. That is the sum total of Chloe. Oh and her name means green herb. (??? Relevance?)

How someone gets from that to Chloe being “an early church leader” is insane. Literally, mentally cracked. (As Ms. Prata mentioned, we know nothing about Chloe. So we would suggest that to Argue From Silence is itself insane.)

Priscilla was mentioned, too. (Several times and at length. She and her husband were clearly important people.)

We know she was married to Aquila, and we know she took Apollos aside along with her husband in order to teach Apollos more accurately.

Priscilla was mentioned 6 times, (Acts 18:2, 18, 26; Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 16:19; 2 Timothy 4:19). She is always mentioned along with her husband. They are a pair, and separating Priscilla in order to place her on an imaginary leadership pedestal (One does not need to "separate" Pricilla in order to describe her as a leader. They both were important figures.)

would be to use a scalpel to excise Aquila from scripture. (Which is essentially what Ms. Prata is attempting to do with Pricilla.

But discussing the nature of Pricilla's authority does not come to bear on Aquila. Ms. Prata is inventing an objection.)

We cannot vault Priscilla to a leadership position any more than we could for Aquila. (Why not? Ms. Prata make a categorical claim about the two when she cannot know their status in the church.

Ms. Prata diminishes Aquilla in order to keep Pricilla off the list of "leaders.")

Phoebe was also put on the list in this discussion of ‘early women leaders’ as a leader in the church. We do know from scripture she was a benefactor of the early church. Susannah was a benefactor too, but not claimed as a leader. Hmm. Phoebe was mentioned as having brought a letter to Rome, probably in a group of others since traveling alone as a female was dangerous. Phoebe was called a deaconess, meaning servant, and as such, could have been a teacher of all female inquirers of the faith, (Ms. Prata speculates without evidence. Phoebe was specifically named as a deaconess, like others were who were men.  Ms. Prata needs to explain her away and diminish her in order for to bolster her doctrine.)

(because we know from 1 Timothy 2:12 she would not have been teaching the men). (This seems to be the sole Scripture around which everything else revolves. Because Ms. Prata incorrectly understands the verse it leads to incorrect understanding other verses, and of what certain women may or may not have been.)

Or she could have been and be active in the helping the poor among the flock, since Paul called her a benefactor. (Ms. Prata again speculates.)

That’s it. (Waaait. What happened to the "elect lady?" [2Jn. 1] Why did "the elder" address his letter to her in the exact same manner as 3 John is addressed to Gaius? Where is Ms. Prata's attempt to explain her away?)

Nothing in there to lead one to believe she was a leader of any type more than Mary and Martha, who opened their home and served those who came, and who were active in Jesus’ ministry as believers and followers.

The simple fact that some women are mentioned is far from proof they led. Dorcas/Tabitha was more than mentioned, an entire story revolves around Dorcas. (Where in the Bible do we find this? Yes, we can look it up, but Ms. Prata is a supposed Bible teacher. If she's going to mention things in the Bible she needs to tell us where these things are found. [Ac. 9:36])

She was even resurrected from the dead. Yet feminists do not call her a leader. I wonder why. Could it be because the Bible clearly limits her sphere of influence to sewing and widows, traditional female domains?

The stretch and twisting that feminist women give to these few Bible women and try to vault them into positions they clearly did not attain is startling. But when one has an agenda, one will go to lengths to prop it up. (Irony alert. This is exactly what Ms. Prata is doing.)

Women’s position in society pre-Incarnation was as chattel, and invisible. (Yet Ms. Prata questions Deborah's credentials...)

They were equated with slaves as far as admissibility in testifying in court, which was a big NOPE. Public worship can take place in a synagogue only if at least ten adult Jewish males were there for a quorum. Women do not qualify as part of this quorum, which is likely why there was a group of women by the river (which included Lydia) that Paul found. (Ms. Prata continues to explain the very reason women in Israel were not named as leaders while simultaneously appealing to this fact as evidence for her theory. Hmm.)

Jesus elevated the status of women by including them in his ministry. (How did Jesus include women in his ministry yet she thinks they did not have any authority?)

Susannah and Lydia and Phoebe were benefactors. Mary and Martha (and Lazarus) opened their home to Jesus. Philip’s daughters evangelized. (No, Philip's daughters are not described as evangelizing: 

Ac. 21:9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.

Now Ms. Prata is lying to us.)

Priscilla (and Aquila) taught. But their elevation into the mix of daily service does not mean they led in church. (Women leading is a matter apart from women teaching.)

Many scriptures are clear that women are not to lead in services but to be silent participants. ("Many?" Name them. Ms. Prata, you fancy yourself as a teacher, so name the verses.)

And to serve enthusiastically in all other places God has ordained and in the many roles we see women serving in the New Testament: financial support, evangelizing, hospitality, serving other women, teaching women, children, and grandchildren, and other background but critical service.

My greatest wish is for usurping women to finally become content with the roles Jesus has outlined for us in all spheres; church, home, and world. If they do not, Jesus will address this on the Day, which will be more uncomfortable and more embarrassing than accepting it here on earth.