Objection: The Presence of Prominent Female Leaders Has Always Identified Cultic Movements
I don’t consider it a given that cults have more female leaders than male leaders, but the author’s clear premise in the book where this is stated is that women are to be silent in the church and not teach men and that the presence of women leaders “who don’t know their place” is a clear sign of apostasy.
To clear up this little side-swipe against healing ministers, we need to understand that the passages that are usually used to claim that women should not be leaders have been misapplied.
The first one, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, says that women should be silent in church, and if they want to know anything, they should ask their husbands at home. This indicates that the issue was the noise they were making asking their husbands questions. Given that traditional synagogues separated the men from the women, a woman would not be able to whisper a question to her husband – she’d have to yell it across the room. Paul rightly considered that out of order and shameful.
However, the New Testament is clear that women were not to be literally silent in the church. Worshiping “with the Spirit” and “with the understanding” was not restricted to men, and Joel said that people’s sons and daughters would prophesy. I don’t believe that Joel’s intent was that women must prophesy in sign language so that they can be silent. Even churches that claim that a woman must be silent don’t believe it. They let women pray. They let women be greeters. They let women sing and even lead worship. They let women teach the children (male and female) in Sunday school. They can’t do any of these things while remaining silent in the church! They don’t really think that women should be silent! But if they don’t, they lose the right to make their argument that women must literally be mute in church!
The other alleged “anti-woman-leader” Scripture is 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul says that he does not permit a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man. This has NOTHING TO DO with church relationships. Paul was talking about a husband and a wife. This is proved by the context in the next three verses, ending with the woman (the wife) being saved through childbearing if “they” (the husband and the wife!) continue in faith and love and holiness with sobriety. The Greek words in 1 Timothy 2:12, while they CAN refer to men and women in general, are the words that would be used for a husband and a wife. Besides, the Greek is clear that the issue is usurping authority. Telling married women not to usurp authority over their husbands is completely different form saying that woman cannot HAVE positions of authority in the church or preach to men.
The King James Version makes it clear that a husband and a wife are involved, saying that a woman is not to usurp authority over the man, not a man. Young’s Literal Translation says, “and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness.”
Some versions of this objection point out that two verses later, Paul said that the woman was deceived and that therefore, women should not teach because they are easily deceived. But Priscilla (a woman), taught Apollos (a man), and Paul took no issue with it:
Acts 18:26:
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
In fact, while Aquila is mentioned before Priscilla in Acts 18:2, Acts 18:26 and 1 Corinthians 16:19, Priscilla is mentioned before Aquilla in Acts 18:18 and Romans 16:3. This shows that she took an active role as opposed to just being a sidekick for Aquila while he did all the gospel work.
Furthermore, Paul said that older women should teach younger women.
Titus 2:3-4:
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
If women shouldn’t teach because they are easily deceived, they shouldn’t teach ANYONE, including other women, and that is clearly contrary to Scripture.
Paul had no problem commending Phebe, a diakonos of the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16:1). (The King James Version and most other Bibles say that she was a servant of that church.) This Greek word diakonos is the same word translated deacon in 1 Timothy 3:8 and 1 Timothy 3:12. Thus, it should not be a problem to translate this verse as commending Phebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchrea. However, the Greek word by itself is not a slam-dunk proof that Phebe was a deacon because the same word diakonos refers to a household slave in a few other New Testament verses, though “minister” is a more common translation than servant or deacon (and in at least two of the cases where the word is translated minister, it clearly refers to a household servant). The proof that she was a deacon in the 1 Timothy 3 sense comes from the context. People referred to as slaves or servants with the word diakonos were never referred to as servants of the church, and clearly, the men people referred to as deacons in 1 Timothy 3 were not “household slaves” of the church. Even more importantly, the very next verse commands the Christians in Rome to assist her, which would not be something a mere household slave would do, as he would be the one doing the assisting!
Romans 16:2:
That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
Further proof that she was considered a leader is the context above where it is apparent that Phebe would tell people what she needed and others were expected to provide what she asked.
Even further proof that Phebe was a leader as opposed to a slave comes from the word succourer in the verse above, which is derived from a Greek word meaning a patron (or patroness in her case). This would be a person of means, possibly the kind who would have his or her own household servants, rather than being one himself or herself.
This fact busts the next argument that leaders (including deacons, referred to by the word diakonos used to describe Phebe) must be “the husband of one wife” and thus male. Phebe WAS a deacon (with Paul’s commendation). She could not have been the husband of one wife! “Husband of one wife” would refer to the sexual purity of the deacon, but it could not have been a literal restriction as some take it because Paul would then be disqualified to lead anything himself! He was not the husband of one wife – he was single! Based on some people’s literal logic, no single person could ever be a leader!
If the objector is correct, ISRAEL is a cult because Deborah led it at one point as its judge.
In Psalm 68:11, the “host” that does the proclaiming of the word the Lord gave is held in many translations (but not the KJV) to be women because of the nuances of the Hebrew word used. For example, Young’s Literal Translation uses the phrase “female proclaimers.” Also, almost every Bible commentary I’ve seen on this declares the “host” here to be a group of women. But most of the commentaries I’ve read have disclaimers that surely this doesn’t allow women to preach today. They’re wrong that women can’t preach, but the word definitely enough refers to females so that even such commentators had to admit that the great company of proclaimers was female. Their usual comment is that women SANG to announce victories and so that’s what the verse means. But that isn’t what it SAYS (let alone MEANS) – it SAYS that the LORD gave the word and great was the company of females who proclaimed it! What’s IT? The Word of the Lord, not the announcement of a military conquest. Even if you take these commentators’ incorrect explanation that these women were just singing (which the verse does NOT state), I sometimes preach through song, too, and that is still preaching.
Paul also referred to an apostle named Junia. She is controversial because one Greek source states that Junia is definitely a female while another allows for either gender – but neither insists that this person had to be male. There seems to be some disagreement, so she is probably not an airtight case, but she certainly isn’t a case against female apostles. Paul referred to Euodias and Syntyche (both women) as women who “labored with him in the gospel” (Philippians 4:2-3).
Anyone who believes that the Holy Spirit would never lead a woman to preach to men hasn’t read Acts 2 very carefully. We know that Mary was in the upper room (Acts 1:14), so she was one of those who proclaimed the wonderful works of God to people (including MEN) who spoke other languages! If the Holy Spirit could anoint a woman to preach supernaturally to men then, why not now?
Jesus had no issue with having the woman at the well go around town proclaiming to the MEN what He had done.
John 4:28-30:
The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,
Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.
Also, God had no problem instructing three women at Jesus’ tomb to go proclaim the resurrection to the disciples (and Peter), who were all men!
Mark 16:7:
But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
Surely women should be able to preach the resurrection to men today also.
The objector, who was a big non-fan of women with prominent healing ministries and didn’t mind bashing them by name, attempted to “prove” that such ministries were out of order because the women didn’t know their “proper” place. But we’ve just proved that the Scriptures do not actually prohibit women from speaking in church, having authority or leading men. Therefore, this objection has been disproven.