Women's Role

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In 1 Timothy 2:13-14 Paul gives two reasons why women are not to lead.
The first, is that Adam was created before Eve, thus in God's arrangement and order of things man was to occupy the first place.

Matt. 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first shall be last:

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Matt. 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first shall be last:

Why would anyone want to be a leader then?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why would anyone want to be a leader then?

A leader of what? Ambiguity aside, I can only speculate that you mean "be a leader" in the church. Not everyone desires to be a church leader anyway.

Christ is the head. We are the body. Why not let him lead his church as he sees fit?
.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

A leader of what? Ambiguity aside, I can only speculate that you mean "be a leader" in the church. Not everyone desires to be a church leader anyway.

Christ is the head. We are the body. Why not let him lead his church as he sees fit?

It sounds good. And spiritual. But how he leads is generally through people. Therefore human leaders are and will be. The problem is not leaders. It is those who take the position that should not.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

It sounds good. And spiritual. But how he leads is generally through people. Therefore human leaders are and will be. The problem is not leaders. It is those who take the position that should not.

i.e. those who usurp his headship. And I believe it is a spiritual problem...a spiritual battle. There are 2 "churches": what man calls "church" and what God calls "church".

I just can't see that the church for which he died has a whole lot to do with the current situation. Of course, to the extent that the members are true believers, yes. To the organization, structure, and leadership in a group dynamic, I see men in charge.

The pattern in the Word is that of a family, with our Heavenly Father and our brother. We are members one of another; all men know that you are my disciples...love one for another.

The converse is a staff of pastors and a board of directors who establish guidelines which often give lip service to obedience to God's Word. This goes far beyond those who shouldn't be in a position of leadership. Expectations in most churches today is that the members would attend a service and everything will be done for them, with no expectation of personal responsibility. This pattern is perpetuated and enabled in the man-made church where politics, membership and finanacial contributions are in the forefront.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

i.e. those who usurp his headship. And I believe it is a spiritual problem...a spiritual battle. There are 2 "churches": what man calls "church" and what God calls "church".

And yet, the Bible is full of references to things within what is labeled as the church that are not entirely what would be if it was all just wonderfully lead directly by Christ.

It is a spiritual battle. And at times the battle, while not with flesh and blood, will include issues with flesh and blood. And it happens within the church.

What you point to in your "2 churches" comment is the fact that the word is used to label two sets (in the mathematical sense) that have significant overlap. And since they are both referred in the Bible as "church," then it is hard to declare that God only calls one of them "church." He is the inspiration behind it all. Not just the parts that talk about the universal church, the body of Christ.

First, there is the church, the body of Christ. No matter how poor we are individually with respect to each other, that is the true, spiritual church.

But second, there is the meeting which will only be nice and neat if we exclude unbelievers and those of different opinions from joining in. And if we exclude unbelievers from meeting, then we take away at least part of the process by which they might come to believe. In the more modern Baptist sense, you can't have an altar call if you have excluded the unsaved from your meeting.

And even if those who have different opinions meet separately, they are each "church" in the sense that they are assemblies of believers (or primarily so, taking the previous discussion into account). But the view from the throne is of one church, the body of Christ, that is meeting in two places. And meeting in two places is not a problem in itself. We will, in the area in which I live, meet in a significant number of places no matter how much we agree or disagree concerning all those side issues.

And if side issues are not the definer of salvation and of "church," then it is all church.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

And yet, the Bible is full of references to things within what is labeled as the church that are not entirely what would be if it was all just wonderfully lead directly by Christ.

It is a spiritual battle. And at times the battle, while not with flesh and blood, will include issues with flesh and blood. And it happens within the church.

What you point to in your "2 churches" comment is the fact that the word is used to label two sets (in the mathematical sense) that have significant overlap. And since they are both referred in the Bible as "church," then it is hard to declare that God only calls one of them "church." He is the inspiration behind it all. Not just the parts that talk about the universal church, the body of Christ.

First, there is the church, the body of Christ. No matter how poor we are individually with respect to each other, that is the true, spiritual church.

But second, there is the meeting which will only be nice and neat if we exclude unbelievers and those of different opinions from joining in. And if we exclude unbelievers from meeting, then we take away at least part of the process by which they might come to believe. In the more modern Baptist sense, you can't have an altar call if you have excluded the unsaved from your meeting.

And even if those who have different opinions meet separately, they are each "church" in the sense that they are assemblies of believers (or primarily so, taking the previous discussion into account). But the view from the throne is of one church, the body of Christ, that is meeting in two places. And meeting in two places is not a problem in itself. We will, in the area in which I live, meet in a significant number of places no matter how much we agree or disagree concerning all those side issues.

And if side issues are not the definer of salvation and of "church," then it is all church.

Point taken. Differing opinions will always be a factor, so it depends on which opinions and how extreme.

The "board of trustees," for example, amends the church bylaws to deny future membership to unmarried couples living together. However, any unmarried couple living together who are already members retain their membership as being "grandfathered in". This is a real life example. To make matters worse, said bylaws were amended behind closed doors without publishing the changes to the church. If you didn't read the bylaws after every trustee meeting, you would never know about such changes.

Many such blatant examples can be sited where the "bylaws" take precedence over the Bible.

One person who DID confront the "untrustees" were told to basically "sit down and shut up." That has a familiar ring, doesn't it?

So where does this leave the unbelievers who come to hear the gospel being preached? Is this the gospel of Jesus Christ who came to save his people from their sins, or another gospel?

The next stage is "Oh well. Nobody's perfect. We just do what we can to work around the spots and wrinkles." It seems that this is the compromised condition of the church (composit 2 churches) today. In today's political climate there would be war against Christians who stand as the church for the truth of the Bible. This war would be worse than it already is today.

How do you dig out of this mess? Leave? Stay, stand and speak the truth? The Bible hasn't changed. You have to start somewhere. Who is going to start? The leadership has failed the members and try to hide their failures. The leaders failed to obey God's word. Members who stand up and speak are shut down. Doesn't say much for Christian leaders does it? But we knew that.

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

The converse is a staff of pastors and a board of directors who establish guidelines which often give lip service to obedience to God's Word.

I prolly shouldn't butt in here but I should point out that God's Word is 66 books, all written by men ; Jewish men at that, that were highly patriarchal ; that depict God as a male, that attribute the fall out of paradise as the woman's' fault (I Tim 2:14, said to be written by a never married male) -, and even only has male angels -- get that ... no female angels in the Bible ... why's that?

So sticking to God's Word would likely result in the suppression of females.

In churches I've been in, 'where women are to remain silent,' they just ignore the verse that says "in Christ there's no male or female."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

A leader of what? Ambiguity aside, I can only speculate that you mean "be a leader" in the church. Not everyone desires to be a church leader anyway.

Christ is the head. We are the body. Why not let him lead his church as he sees fit?
.

I agree. Lets let Christ lead and appoint anyone He chooses to oversee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why would anyone want to be a leader then?

To be a servant to serve others.

A point long lost in LSM circles.