The Instigator
BradyM
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Zealous1
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

Women ought not to be the head in a ministerial role

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,244 times Debate No: 15206
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (7)

 

BradyM

Con

Admittedly, some verses teach taht women are to submit to men and expressly forbid women to exercise spiritual authority over men. But these passages do not express God's will for all time. As Con I believe that it does not matter if women are the head of a ministerial role. In order to express my position I offer the following contentions:

Contention 1:
It often goes unnoticed, but God incorporated the songs and statements of a number of women into his inspired authoritative Scripture (Exodus 15:21; Judges 5; Luke 1: 46-55). In as much as the whole Word of God has authority over believers, these passages have examples of women having spiritual authority over all (including men) who read them.

Contention 2:
Women were given the same command to "rule" over creation as were men (Gen. 1:27-28)

Contention 3:
Huldah was a prophetess consulted by both men and women. Noadiah and Anna are also depicted as pophetesses who could teach (Neh. 6:14; Luke 2:36-38).

Contention 4: Reason and Experience
reason and experience do not support the notion that women cannot be gifted to exercise the highest levels of spiritual authority. There is no connection between a person's gender and their ability to preach or teach. Throughout history for the past 150 years it has shown that God has used women for preaching, being teachers, evangelists and pastors.
Zealous1

Pro

First off I would like to thank my opponent for creating a wonderful debate. Let's dive into the argumentation by first going over the faulty verses that my opponent has brought up, and then moving on to my own superior verses from the bible.

Contention 1.

Exodus verse: This was a prophetess, and it was before the new testament. I will be referring a lot to the fact that there is a difference between the new testament and the old one. Also, God decided to use her as part of his word. There's a difference between electing a woman pastor and God choosing a woman pastor.

Judges 5: My opponent has used a verse that, laughably so, can be used against him. This verse is referring to Deborah and her leadership position. Note, this is the ONLY time a woman had such a position in the Bible.

My people! Their oppressors are children,
And women rule over them
O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray
And confuse the direction of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12)

Ouch. That means women were inadequate for leadership.

Also, there was a reason she was the leader.
a. There were no men that would take her position
The men were afraid.
b. It was done as a rebuke.
As the isaiah verse evidenced, they didn't like the idea.

Deborah also asked the general to take a leadership role in the battle. So she was giving men the most authority possible.

As we can see, this verse does not apply to prove his point, and in fact actually is a point for me.

Luke: Cross-apply what I said under the Exodus verse. Also, this is before the death of Christ so it's still the old covenant.

As we can see, the verses used under this contention do not prove my opponent's weak point. Also, Judges 5 was more of a point for me, not my opponent.

Contention 2.

This verse does not apply. It's talking about animals, not humans. The verse can be translated as "God told humans to rule over animals". And of course I'm not arguing that woman can't rule over animals.

Do not be fooled by this verse, it was wrongly applied.

Contention 3.

Again, appointed by God and not by some men. Also, this is again before the new covenant.

Contention 4.

This point is on the verge of silliness. My opponent is trying to say that because women are CAPABLE of teaching that means they should and may. As all my refutation has evidenced, women are capable but should not. I will bring my own verse in soon. It's like saying that because women can work and men can cook, that women should be the head of the home and go to work rather than stay home and do what women should do.

Note: I am not at all opposed to women working. I'm opposed to women working if the man is perfectly capable and she's just taking his place. If a woman has to support herself, she has to support herself. So don't think I am taking my position to the extreme.

My own verses

I would like to bring in my own verses. Unlike my opponent's faulty verses, they are actually during the new covenant and DIRECTLY state my position.

1 Timothy 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

1 corinthians 14:34

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.


These two verses clearly refute my opponent's weak position.


In summary, all of my opponent's verses have been before the new covenant, and a few were mentioning women appointed by GOD, rather than PEOPLE. Judges 5 actually flows as a point for me since it was considered a punishment to the Israelites. Contention 4 was on the verge of silliness since it was saying that just because women can, they should. Another analogy is that just because you can jump off a cliff, you should. (Not).

Please cast away your personal biases if you have any and vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
BradyM

Con

Contention 1:
Exodus verse rebuttal:
my opponent says is that "God decided to use her as part of his Word. There's a difference between electing a woman pastor and God choosing a woman pastor." I think in this debate my opponent is getting confused about what we are debating. By his own admission about God choosing her to bring forth his word is proof that God used a woman in a ministerial role prooving my contention to still stand. God specifically summoned her by my opponents admission. And if my opponent is agreeing with me about God choosing a woman to be in ministry and it being okay, then he has conceceded the round validating my case.

Judges 5 rebuttal:
A wise man once said, "I will be referring a lot to the fact that there is a difference between the new testament and the old one." This wise man said previous, "...it was before the new testament." Oh wait! That was you. If u try and throw out my arguement about the prophetess in the Exodus verse because it was the old testament, don't for a moment try and quote old testament verses in this debate. You're contradicting yourself. IfI can't use OT verses you can't either. Also one more thing. I think you're getting you're history a little confused.Deborah didn't live in the time of Isaiah. Deborah lived in the time of Judges before there were kings in Israel and Isaiah lived under king Hezekiah. Two different books and two different times. You're getting your books mixed up there. Therefore everything you said in response to my Judges 5 example completely falls.

Luke rebuttal:
My verse for Luke still holds up. You can't be so ignorant that you want to throw out everything because there were "old testament" verses. If that was the case, you can therefore rip out the whole old testament from your Bible and get rid of it. Jesus said in Matthew,"I haven't come to abolish the Law." The old testament is still an important part of the Bible.

Contention 2 rebuttal:
The reason I quoted this verse is because God told women and men to both rule over, not only the animals, but the earth. That verse bascially says that He created them both in His image, meaning that God doesn't differentiate between the two. It still stands.

Contention 3 rebuttal:
I mention howHuldah was a prophetess consulted by both men and women. Also that Noadiah and Anna are also depicted as pophetesses who could teach. My opponent goes on to basically say that God appointed them so it's okay. He admitts it in his rebuttal. He basically completely agreed with my third contention therefore it still stands. We are not debating whether God or man choosing them is okay, we are debating if they should be in ministry at all. He did a poor job at refuting this. I also argue the second thing he mention under my "Luke rebuttal".

Contention 4 rebuttal:
Again my opponent does a poor job at refuting my point. All women pastors, or at least most of them, say that God called them into the ministry. And if you wanna condem their calling, take it up with God.
Now on to my opponents case:

-------------On to his case-------------

For my opponents first contention he tries and justifes women not talking in church by quoting 1 Tim. 2:12. Since scripture provides examples of women violating the prohibitions there but be cultural reasons why Paul made these statements and there was so.

Also he tries to quote 1 Corin.14:34.
Concerning the Corinthian passage Paul saying women can't speak can't be taken as absolute for the simple reason that Paul earlier taught that women could pray and propesy in church as long as they covered their heads. How do we reconcile these statements? In one statement it's ok and another it's not? Obviiously he was dealing with a cultural approach to the Corinth church.

My opponent does a poor job at refuting my case. It still stands and all he could provide us with was two scriptures that don't accurately depict his side. OT is still an important part of the Bible.
Zealous1

Pro

Contention 1.

Exodus: Oh, so we're debating whether or not God has used women in the Bible? Well let's look at the resolution. "Women ought not to be the head in a ministerial role". Does the resolution say "God has used women therefore we can use women"? No. Don't try to change what the resolution says just so you can win.

If you indeed by some wild imagination can interpret the resolution as "God has used women in the Bible", please vote Pro (me) because that would be an unfair resolution. (You can't deny fact in a debate round, can you?)

Judges:

Doesn't matter that Deborah lived before Isaiah. Of course she lived before Isaiah. But it's an example that women leading was actually a punishment and it wasn't that great of a time for them. It doesn't have to be talking about Deborah specifically.

Contradicting: No I'm not. I'm saying you can't use old testament verses for this specific topic, to prove your point. Why can I use them? Because I'm rebutting your old testament verse with an old testament verse. I'm not trying to prove using the Isaiah verse that women should not head a ministerial role.

My opponent did not respond to the fact that Deborah asked the General to lead, so that flows through. That alone is enough to knock down the verse. Also, he/she did not contest that women leading was actually more of a punishment. That also flows to me. My opponent may not respond to dropped arguments.

Luke: I'm not trying to discredit everything in the OT. I just stated that this specific topic cannot be proved using OT verses.

Contention 2. Yes, God created men and women both in his image. That doesn't mean he doesn't differentiate between the two when it comes to ROLES in their relationship towards EACH OTHER. This is an invalid response to my point.

Contention 3. Again, the resolution does not say that we're debating whether they've been used for a ministerial role. Also, the resolution by common sense is saying that we are debating whether they should be in a ministerial role NOW ADAYS, not back when God appointed them. My argument is that no, now adays they shouldn't be. Again, I can't debate against a fact. If you're saying whether they should at any time, you automatically win because God does not sin and he appointed them. That would be an unfair resolution.

Contention 4. Ahahaha. So my opponent is trying to say that just because women pastors say they were called by God that they ARE. They only reason they say that is because they need some kind of excuse for being a woman pastor. This response is totally flaky.

My own verses

Timothy: Wow, that was a really bad response yet again. First, the point under that verse is not that women should never talk while in church or shouldn't teach other women. It's that they shouldn't teach men. "The scripture provides examples of women violating this" During the old covenant, yet again. My opponent must stop using old testament verses as examples. Until she provides a solid example from the new testament, I win this debate.

Corinthians: All my opponent refuted was that this can't be taken as an absolute. I'm not trying to take it as an absolute. My argument is that it means women should not teach other men in church, not that they can't TALK or PRAY.

Cultural approach: You need to provide evidence that it is a cultural approach.

Actually, my opponent has done a poor job as well. He/she has only used old covenant verses to prove the point, which is invalid for this certain topic. Sure, old testament is an important part of the Bible, but we can't use it for this topic. My Isaiah verse was in response to your own OT verse, so it's fine.

Also, the resolution clearly does not mean what my opponent has tried to make it mean in desperation. Don't let my opponent cheat on me by changing the meaning of the resolution in round.

Thank you, please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
BradyM

Con


Contention 1.
Exodus:
Wow, very very poor argument yet again. No, my point is that "God is the same yesterday today and forever "(Hebrews 13:8). If God used women for ministry at any point in the Bible then it's open season for women today. Don't try and weasle your way out of an arguement by trying to say "well that was then and this is now." Clearly women have been used for ministry in the old and new testament.

If you want a New testament example, that's completely fine. Read Romans 16:1-2. There's your new testament example since you're so insistent upon that. Phoebe was a first-century Christian in Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth. Paul gives her a comparatively lengthy introduction and accommodation.

Judges:
Doesn't matter that Deborah lived before Isaiah? Well, it does if you said in the debate she does. You are clearly lost in your information and when confronted with it you try and blow it off by saying that this doesn't matter. Clearly you have no way of refuting it. I understand that you are trying to say that he was mocking Israel for having a women leader but you have to understand the difference between political and spiritual leadership. Their were women in ministry it was rare but because it was rare doesn't mean it was a prohibition.

Nice try with the dropped arguement stuff. My arguement wasn't that it was bad under her leadership, i was debating that God put her in the leadership therefore validating her place. That was pretty cute though. As a judge she was head of Israel in lieu of a King therefore she was the head of a ministerial role and don't try and say that that is old testament therefore it doesn't matter. That's a horrible rebuttal and a cop out way of responding to a point. "Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8. "I am the Lord and I do not change" (Malachi 3:6).

Luke:
If you look back at my previous points, I have clearly defended this and upheld it.

Contention 2:
"That doesn't mean he doesn't differentiate between the two when it comes to ROLES in their relationship towards each other"? Obviously, you haven't read the book of Galatians where it says in chapter three verse twenty-eight, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Contention 3:
Wow again, another poor arguement. My opponent states "we are debating whether they've been used for a ministerial role. Also, the resolution by common sense is saying that we are debating whether they should be in a ministerial role NOW ADAYS." If they were used back then for it, they are used today for it. Yet again, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8) and Malachi 3:6, "I am the Lord and Change not."

Contention 4:
You can't try and invalidate a claim by trying to say they aren't called and saying you have supposed scripture for it. I really doubt someone would want to be in ministry when they aren't suppose to.

------HIS CASE------

Timothy:
Like I said back in the times of the disciples women were treated low. Therefore Paul didn't allow them to speak. It was a cultural approach when dealing with that issue back then.

Corinth:
Changing your argument again? You just said that it means women should not teach other men in church but prieviously you said they shouldn't be in ministry at all. Stick to one side.

Cultural app:
"Provide evidence" A horrible debate tactic that people say when they don't know how to rebut a point.

I have refuted every point in my opponent's case and my case still stands. He has done a poor job in refuting it. God HAS used women in the Bible in the past and for ministry so therefore He does today.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever." Hebrews 13:8
"I am the Lord and don't change." Malachi 3:6

Vote Con, thank you.
Zealous1

Pro

Contention 1.


Exodus:


Hebrews 13:8


Indeed, God never changes. But what he uses changes. Eg.


1. The flood. He did that once. With my opponent’s argument, we would have had a flood several times over.


2. Prophets. There are no longer prophets. God didn’t change, He just changed the way He teaches.


I was not weaseling out of an argument.


Romans 16:1-2


Oh good, finally New Testament proof! Errr… Not. The verse talks about Phoebe, a woman deacon.


Definition of deacon: Servant.


Deacons do not teach men. This verse, unfortunately for my opponent, still does not prove anything. We’ll have to presume Con HAS NO PROOF, and I DO.


Judges:


“You are…lost in your information… you have no way of refuting it”


Insult #1 of many.


1. I wasn’t saying it was a prohibition back then. It sure was a shame.


2. Cross-Apply my point about New Testament vs. Old Testament.



“Nice try... dropped argument stuff”


Try? My opponent still hasn’t brought them up so I win on those points.


“Pretty cute”


Insult #2 of many.


“Horrible rebuttal”


Insult #3 of many. (See a pattern?)


Cross-Apply my response to the Hebrews verse which also applies to Malachi.




Luke:


Cross-Apply the new covenant vs. old covenant point.


Contention 2.


Where in there does it mention that it’s fine for a woman to teach? It just states man/woman relations to God are the same, not the same towards to each other.


Contention 3.


“Poor argument”


Insult #4 of many.


My opponent just quotes Hebrews and Malachi. Cross-Apply my simple response to these faulty verses.



Contention 4.


1. They believe that they have some kind of duty to do so probably using the same misused verses as my opponent.


2. There’s a difference between God actually speaking to a woman like in the Bible and these women pastors just saying they felt they should be in this ministry


You can’t just say that because they say God told them to he did. It is a faulty argument.



Timothy: Evidence that they were treated low? No. I have evidence that they were treated fairly, though. Just cross-apply Con’s verse about Phoebe the deacon. She obviously can talk. She wasn’t told to hush up and sit still. She wasn’t teaching men, either. The perfect balance.


Corinth:


1. I never said that they shouldn’t be in the ministry. I said they shouldn’t teach men.


2. My opponent did not respond, she just said to stick to a side.



Cultural Approach:


Insult #(I lost count. Oh yeah, 5!)


Of course my opponent needs evidence. She might as well say Russia will collapse tomorrow “because she said so.”


She doesn’t have a Ph.D in studying these things; she needs to quote someone who actually studied the culture. Secondly, I provided my own evidence on this point: her evidence about Phoebe the deacon.



“He has done a poor job in refuting it”


Insult # (Drum roll) 6



She either used the faulty Hebrews and Malachi verses, insulted me, or repeated her past points. My opponent barely refuted anything. I responded to them accordingly.



Let’s recap the Malachi and Hebrews verse. My response to this is that yes, God doesn’t change, but, his methods change over the years. I gave two examples: prophets and the flood.


Here’s some more. God made a donkey speak to someone in the Bible. When was the last time you heard of an animal speaking in the news?


He used an angel to kill thousands. When was the last time you heard that thousands are being attacked by an angel?


God’s methods obviously change. He no longer uses women to teach. ALL of my opponent’s verses that “prove” that women should teach men are either faulty or are before the new covenant.


Because Con has not proved her position adequately (and I have), and because of her 6 insults, please vote Pro.

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Sob story? I just noted you were insulting me. I don't easily get offended and I wasn't offended at all. But there is such a thing as misconduct.
Posted by BradyM 5 years ago
BradyM
I think it's pretty hilarious that Zealous1 would try and do the whole "sob-story-vote-for-me" move.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Thank you for the feedback.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
BradyM...

Galatians is not saying that there is no Male or Female... that is nonsensical. Rather, IN CHRIST there is no male or female. The term "In Christ" always refers to our Salvific status in scripture... so Paul is saying "In regards to salvation, there is no male or female." Compare this to "Jew or Gentile." There is no salvific difference in status between Jew or Gentile, not that there was not Jews or Gentiles anymore.

This was to fight the notion that Women had a different salvational status... something that was common in the early church. The Gnostic Gospel of Peter argues that in order to be saved, a woman must spiritually become a man. Paul was fighting this notion among others.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Wow... this is just one big proof text war... so disappointing.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@ReformedAresnal Ditto.
Posted by BradyM 5 years ago
BradyM
Yes, it would be completely based on the Bible.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I would like to accept this debate, but I apparently do not meet the age or rank criteria.
Posted by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
Will this be completely based on the bible?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
BradyMZealous1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has clearer links to the biblical verses he provided which outweigh Con's verses.
Vote Placed by gabeXcore 5 years ago
gabeXcore
BradyMZealous1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro danced around the arguements and also pulled a sob story at the end. Very unprofessional.
Vote Placed by WrathofGod 5 years ago
WrathofGod
BradyMZealous1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't believe anybody is voting for Zealous. He clearly had no clue what he was talking about, he muddied the waters, and he struck first with sarcasm. Con wins on every level.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
BradyMZealous1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was more polite and had their evidence/logic much more in order than pro.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
BradyMZealous1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con consistently insulted Pro... also the use of BOLD CAPS is not polite in debate and implies yelling. Uncool. Furthermore, Con did not respond adequately to the 1 Timothy Verse. You can easily argue that other verses are cultural, but in 1st Timothy, Paul appeals to creation for his backing... this is not just a cultural reference (still doesn't have to mean women can't teach... but you need to argue why). More in my comment.
Vote Placed by Robikan 5 years ago
Robikan
BradyMZealous1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides could have conducted themselves better, and while I don't agree with either side (I don't believe in the divinity of the bible at all), Pro put forth a better argument by offering clear, direct quotes that supported that position.
Vote Placed by IamZero 5 years ago
IamZero
BradyMZealous1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Total victory for pro.