Women's Role

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Oh, great! Then why not point us to the verses concerning the Apostle's fellowship on this point and lets just cut out the "middle man" of Christian tradition. I think it is well documented that Witness Lee did not respect Christian tradition, and I think it is also well documented that those on this forum do respect the fellowship of the Apostles written down for us in the NT.

Everyone has the "fellowship of the Apostles" if they read the bible don't they?

This tradition of forbidding female leadership was not reversed by Luther or Calvin. Did they not have the fellowship of the Apostles also?

John Calvin's commentary on 1 Tim 2:12

If any one bring forward, by way of objection, Deborah and others of the same class, of whom we read that they were at one time appointed by the command of God to govern the people, the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound. Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above all law might do this; but, being a peculiar case, “Because it is a peculiar and extraordinary case.” this is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government.

If we truly care about the fellowship of the Apostles, we would seek out the original Greek meaning of what the Apostles wrote, as I have, by consulting experts such as Wallace.

In addition, we have the serious scholars as I think you called them once before, such as Matthew Henry:


According to St. Paul, women are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority. But good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of true religion.

What makes you think that only you have the "fellowship of the Apostles" and Wallace, Henry, Calvin etc and others do not?

Lee did reference the early church fathers at times, appealing to the early church views and traditions.

I could also quote early church fathers, forbidding female leadership if you like - people who lived closer to the time of the apostles. Or a few good books on Christian history.

During the apostles time, there were no female church leaders. The early church carried on these traditions and still carried on today by Catholic and Orthodox denominations.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I could also quote early church fathers, forbidding female leadership if you like - people who lived closer to the time of the apostles. Or a few good books on Christian history.

During the apostles time, there were no female church leaders. The early church carried on these traditions and still carried on today by Catholic and Orthodox denominations.

The "Lord's Recovery" is the only Christian group I know of that is adamant about no female leadership, yet simultaneously extols females as early church leaders in its own history. Yet none of them could function as they once did, in the current leadership/organizational structure.

Evidently the "dispensation" of female function passed. They were useful for the accretion of temporal, earthly power, then they were cast aside. Now they can be conveniently waved as props, and the next moment put in the drawer. Mesmerised, anyone? (Gal 3:1) How can the flock so passively & uncritically accept such blatant hypocrisy?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

The "Lord's Recovery" is the only Christian group I know of that is adamant about no female leadership, yet simultaneously extols females as early church leaders in its own history. Yet none of them could function as they once did, in the current leadership/organizational structure.

Evidently the "dispensation" of female function passed. They were useful for the accretion of temporal, earthly power, then they were cast aside. Now they can be conveniently waved as props, and the next moment put in the drawer. Mesmerised, anyone? (Gal 3:1) How can the flock so passively & uncritically accept such blatant hypocrisy?

Most non-Catholics and denominations extol Luther as a leader in the history of the church but do not promote or recognize the institution of the monastery, its monks, or their way of life. Luther could not function as he once did in most of the current denominations and it is doubtful he would make it past the front doors for Sunday services even in those places named after him.

How can the flock so passively and uncritically accept such blatant hypocrisy?

The local churches, in the Lords Recovery, are some of the few places that Luther could walk into, sit on the front row, robes and all, and stand up to speak and function. (Admittedly, nailing stuff to the front door of the meeting hall would be frowned upon.)

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Most non-Catholics and denominations extol Luther as a leader in the history of the church but do not promote or recognize the institution of the monastery, its monks, or their way of life. Luther could not function as he once did in most of the current denominations and it is doubtful he would make it past the front doors for Sunday services even in those places named after him.

How can the flock so passively and uncritically accept such blatant hypocrisy?

The local churches, in the Lords Recovery, are some of the few places that Luther could walk into, sit on the front row, robes and all, and stand up to speak and function. (Admittedly, nailing stuff to the front door of the meeting hall would be frowned upon.)

Drake

Interesting. You create a contrived scenario (monasteries and monks) and say Luther of 1523 wouldn't fit into the Lutheran church today. This hypocrisy, so-called, justifies the hypocrisy of "Local Churches" basing their teachings on women's ministries while no longer allowing them the same? Does this make the church pure and spotless in your eyes? And how much do you think God thinks like this? Really?

Look at the website of a pro- "Lord's Recovery" apologetic. Trying to justify the "recovery" of the "three parts of man" idea.

http://www.tripartiteman.org/historical/mcdonough.html

The Website bar reads: "Murray/Pember/Fausset/Larkin/Penn-Lewis/McDonough/Paxson/Nee/Lee"

Believe me, I heard this kind of stuff all the time. Women were put right in with the men if they could justify the ideas of Nee & Lee. Suddenly they were spiritual giants, visionaries, able to recover centuries-hidden 'truths'. But they'd better not try to give a message today! No, their time had passed. The truths were all opened, so we were told, and now only men could guide the ship of state.

They were expendable. They were used and discarded. Luther could walk in today and teach, so you say, but no woman could. Even though once they did, crucially even. The dispensation of the functioning woman has passed. It came, it was useful, now it is over. It is now the age of small potatoes, genuflecting upon the Great Man's words.

Well in that case I guess there is no hypocrisy. Nobody can function in the "Lord's Recovery". Equal-opportunity oppression. Everyone is "restricted". Well, thank God for Nee and Lee, otherwise we'd all just sit around all day, wondering what to do.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Most non-Catholics and denominations extol Luther as a leader in the history of the church but do not promote or recognize the institution of the monastery, its monks, or their way of life. Luther could not function as he once did in most of the current denominations and it is doubtful he would make it past the front doors for Sunday services even in those places named after him.

How can the flock so passively and uncritically accept such blatant hypocrisy?

The local churches, in the Lords Recovery, are some of the few places that Luther could walk into, sit on the front row, robes and all, and stand up to speak and function. (Admittedly, nailing stuff to the front door of the meeting hall would be frowned upon.)

Drake

Are you serious?

He would set afire every one of those HWFMR's.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

The "Lord's Recovery" is the only Christian group I know of that is adamant about no female leadership, yet simultaneously extols females as early church leaders in its own history.

But weren't those founding women of Nee's movement rebels?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The "Lord's Recovery" is the only Christian group I know of that is adamant about no female leadership, yet simultaneously extols females as early church leaders in its own history. Yet none of them could function as they once did, in the current leadership/organizational structure.

Evidently the "dispensation" of female function passed. They were useful for the accretion of temporal, earthly power, then they were cast aside. Now they can be conveniently waved as props, and the next moment put in the drawer. Mesmerised, anyone? (Gal 3:1) How can the flock so passively & uncritically accept such blatant hypocrisy?

The age of female function has passed with the age of spiritual giants.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The age of female function has passed with the age of spiritual giants.

Right. Women could be spiritual giants but they can't teach in the church: dispensationism at its finest. When we do it, it's valid, but then the age passes and then no one can. Because remember, Paul said so; it's in the Bible. God's immutable word. Women can't teach.

But fortunately, because of the pressing need, women could teach between 1830 and 1940. It was a supernatural thing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Right. Women could be spiritual giants but they can't teach in the church: dispensationism at its finest. When we do it, it's valid, but then the age passes and then no one can. Because remember, Paul said so; it's in the Bible. God's immutable word. Women can't teach.

But fortunately, because of the pressing need, women could teach between 1830 and 1940. It was a supernatural thing.

Did Paul intend his statement in I Tim 2 to be added to the 613 laws in the Old Testament? Do we live under the law of Paul?

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did Paul intend his statement in I Tim 2 to be added to the 613 laws in the Old Testament? Do we live under the law of Paul?

I've seen that agued both sides, yea and nay. And I've weighed in, myself. But the answers are irrelevant to the fact that Nee & Lee freely used women's techings if it gave their ideas a patina of legitimacy. And once legitimacy was apparently established - "pouf" - women can't teach in the church. Because the Bible says so.

Crass.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I've seen that agued both sides, yea and nay. And I've weighed in, myself. But the answers are irrelevant to the fact that Nee & Lee freely used women's techings if it gave their ideas a patina of legitimacy. And once legitimacy was apparently established - "pouf" - women can't teach in the church. Because the Bible says so.

Crass.

aron, In your zeal to condemn others you zoom past a potentially valuable point that awareness poses.

the answers are irrelevant? I don't think so. What does the Bible teach about this according to the verses awareness cites?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

I've seen that agued both sides, yea and nay. And I've weighed in, myself. But the answers are irrelevant to the fact that Nee & Lee freely used women's techings if it gave their ideas a patina of legitimacy. And once legitimacy was apparently established - "pouf" - women can't teach in the church. Because the Bible says so.

Crass.

You can't simply take these verses at face value because in other places Paul charges women to teach, or says that they shouldn't speak unless their head is covered. Therefore it is very obvious that Paul is giving a nuanced teaching.

Look at the context of 1tim 2 -- it is about being submissive to the King and the authority that we can live a peaceful life. I liken this chapter to "speaking to the press". I work for the city and we are told very clearly we are not to speak to the press, if the press tries to talk to us we are told who to direct them to. I see this charge about the sister's not usurping authority over a man to be equivalent to being told not to talk to the press.

But regardless of whether you have considered this carefully or not, at the very least you need to realize that this cannot be viewed as a blanket prohibition to speak when there are other places when Paul tells sister's that when they speak they need to do it in a certain way, and then still other places they are charged to teach.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Right. Women could be spiritual giants but they can't teach in the church: dispensationism at its finest. When we do it, it's valid, but then the age passes and then no one can. Because remember, Paul said so; it's in the Bible. God's immutable word. Women can't teach.

But fortunately, because of the pressing need, women could teach between 1830 and 1940. It was a supernatural thing.

For an Evangelical, I am not very dispensational. I think that is a construct of the 19th century that is not really very helpful.

Just to throw a few things out there... Is it not astonishing that a piece of cloth, and sometimes a very small piece of cloth in today's times, would be given such a place of importance in a faith that speaks of the spirit and says that we are free from the bondage of the law? And surely I am not the only one who has noticed that head coverings were never prescribed by the Lord God Jehovah in the Torah for women. I have searched and can find no further reference to head coverings for women in the Bible--at least as a requirement. But Jewish men did develop the custom of covering THEIR heads during worship as did Roman men. Interesting.

Various cultures have developed different ways of showing that a woman is married--or under headship. The Aztec woman wore their hair long and hanging down until married but wore it in criss-crossed braids on top of the head after marriage. Only their husbands were allowed to see their hair down from then on. Women's hair was considered an enticement to men. Braided hair was a sign of marriage and therefore submission.

It seems to have been a human-created custom to cover the head of women. There were various reasons for it, I am sure. It was a protection from both the sun and the heat and certainly hid unwashed or hastily styled and untidy hair. And it probably signaled that they were married in many cultures. We also note that nuns for many centuries wore the head covering and wemple that had been the fashion of all women during the time that these orders of nuns were created. In other words, women desiring to be holy wore what was considered to be the customary head covering of married women of that time. And because nuns considered themselves to be married to the Lord, they covered their head. Religion followed fashion. However, they remained stuck after a while in the old manner of dressing and it caused them to stand out more letting everyone know that they had chosen a route of total dedication to the Lord. However in today's times, nuns no longer wear those particular kind of headdresses, indicating once again that cloth is no signal of submission.

We all know what Paul said. But he ends it with a rather puzzling phrase that indicates that if any argument arises there is no such custom. In the church that I grew up in, which was very evangelical, it was taught that custom,therefore, was never to be anything that was to cause argument or dissension. And I believe this is the reason that the Local Church has never required that all women wear a head covering. Because it was based on custom primarily rather than any kind of edict from the Lord.

It has been argued by a very famous and fundamental Presbyterian minister that the purpose of the head covering was to show that the woman was married and that today wedding rings carry out the same purpose. I tend to agree with him. Certainly Saint Paul was unable to imagine the astonishing changes in fashion that would occur centuries later and felt that the Lord would return even during his time which would end any further discussion.

To finish, it has always seemed to be against the very core of Christian belief to require a woman to put a piece of cloth on her head to show submission. After all, God looks on the heart. Submission is a behavior not a head covering. Many of the women who cover their heads are among the most assertive and strident in the church. Putting the piece of cloth on their head did not change their behavior one iota. Cloth does not change behavior. But it does give a person the opportunity to try to appear more holy and righteous than others by covering her head. And Paul tells us in Galatians that these things have the appearance of holiness but do not change the inward character at all. Other women do it out of peer pressure. So by not doing it for the right reason, they lose all credit for doing it. I have never been able to see that the Lord Jesus, who referred to the Pharisees as whited sepulchres with all of their religious apparel but full of inward decay, would require people to wear something to show a Spiritual transformation--except for modest apparel which anyone with spiritual discernment can feel and understand. Anything else seems to be bondage and contrary to the reality of our freedom in Christ.

Just throwing these out here for consideration.

[Ohio]

Great post, thanks.

My own recent posts (#166 and #168) on this thread were not to promote women's head covering, but to counter LC demands for the so-called "ground of oneness."

[ZNPaaneah]

The NT does not have any requirement or even practice among the churches for head covering, at least if anyone is argumentative about it. That is stated as plainly as it can be stated in the NT.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In addition, we have the serious scholars as I think you called them once before, such as Matthew Henry:


According to St. Paul, women are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority. But good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of true religion.

How do you reconcile this with Paul's word in Titus?

3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Once again, I don't dispute Paul's word that elders need to be "husbands of one wife" not Male, or Men. A single man is not eligible to be an elder, nor is a divorced man, a remarried man, etc. If we are going to be "absolute" for the word, and get rid of the hypocrisy, then do it. Stop making excuses for your own practice while condemning everyone else. This rule by Paul was not about condemning others (including himself) but rather about setting forth a good example to the flock, even as the Apostles state clearly and plainly.

The reality is you can have a ministry even if you are divorced, remarried, single, or (God forbid) a sister. What you can't be if you are any of those is "the husband of one wife". Elders were set forth as an example of the flock. You don't have to be an elder to teach or have a ministry. However, the elders that were able to teach as well were "worthy of double honor".

2nd, if you are the "husband of one wife" when you are selected to be an elder then they are obviously selecting you and your wife. Based on Titus the wife needs to teach the sisters.

Why is this so hard for you to understand and acknowledge?

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Based on Titus the wife needs to teach the sisters.

From my memory "teach" meant "to define doctrine" or define what constituted "truth" in the church. So elder women teaching younger or inexperienced sisters in Titus (for example) would probably be understood in the "Lord's Recovery" as the same as teaching nursery school. Useful but auxiliary.

Yet their apologetics base the revelations of Nee on the teachings of various women. They were even widely regarded as his closest confidants ("co-workers"). Until he no longer needed them. Then they were tossed (Ruth Lee et al).

But their tombs remain, and the "Lord's Recovery" faithfully maintain them. Because at present they give a patina of legitimacy to the ideas of Nee. Yet how can women (who can't teach) be used to give the veneer of legitimacy to Nee's ministry? Why the gross dis-connect?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

From my memory "teach" meant "to define doctrine" or define what constituted "truth" in the church. So elder women teaching younger or inexperienced sisters in Titus (for example) would probably be understood in the "Lord's Recovery" as the same as teaching nursery school. Useful but auxiliary.

This was Witness Lee's explanation for why one verse by Paul charges sister's to teach and another prohibits them from teaching. He inferred that one portion was defining doctrine. But I cannot find any way to discern that distinction from the Greek or from the many different translations.

Instead I would argue that the apostles defined doctrine. No elder has the authority to override the Apostle's fellowship, nor do they have any authority to add or take away from the Apostle's fellowship. So I consider Witness Lee's explanation to be lacking and unsatisfactory.

Instead I would return to my understanding that the elders were chosen to "be an example to the flock". An example of what? Of those who are a husband of one wife, who have led a life of good repute, who have raised a family well. Teaching is not a requirement, those who teach well are worthy of double honor, it is a bonus if the elder can teach, not a requirement.

So then, following the idea that the church is set up as God's family and a healthy example for recovering sinners, then in this family the sister's don't have authority over the men. In a family, and in the church, based on my experience the sisters / wives make 90% of the decisions. Most of these decisions are of little concern to the husband / elders. However, there are times when the husband / elder will be concerned and step in, and in those cases the husband / elder has the veto power.

I was stunned by your considering the verse in Titus as being roughly equivalent to teaching nursery school. Pretty insulting to the "young wives" to be likened to nursery school kids. It seems very arrogant to think that what the brothers are teaching is so critical and what the sister's are teaching is for nursery school. Since 2/3 of the saints are sisters and the sister's have been given the clear authority to teach the sisters I see no reason why this wouldn't potentially be the more impactful ministry.

Successful marriage that results in raising a family well is the key factor in the church growing and multiplying over the last 2,000 years. It is the key factor in the gospel -- a living testimony to those living in an evil and adulterous age. This is how you remove the generational curse.

I have been stunned at how overrated "teaching" is. People are chosen to lead a church based on their ability to teach even though that is not a requirement for elders, (a willingness to teach is a requirement, not the same). However, the very clear requirements are explained away, ignored, and overlooked.

The issue in the NT is not to be a hearer of the word only, but rather a doer of the word. Nothing will prove this more than being the husband of one wife, being of good repute, not being given to drink and raising a family well.

We have often been deceived by "teachers" of the word, like Witness Lee. But had we looked at these requirements for both WL and WN we wouldn't have been deceived. We would have given the proper weight to TL and PL (WL's sons) and to WN's mistress. There have been many other charlatans that were stumbled by one of these four criteria. Why is it that very few give the weight to these matters that Paul gave?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How do you reconcile this with Paul's word in Titus?

3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Sounds to me like Joyce Meyer.

[Drake]

Aron "Interesting. You create a contrived scenario (monasteries and monks) and say Luther of 1523 wouldn't fit into the Lutheran church today. This hypocrisy, so-called, justifies the hypocrisy of "Local Churches" basing their teachings on women's ministries while no longer allowing them the same? Does this make the church pure and spotless in your eyes? And how much do you think God thinks like this? Really?"

If the Luther example is contrived so is your women's argument. That is the point.

First, you cannot possibly know if the function of Ruth Lee, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, ME Barber, etc. would be accepted today.They were then and they could now. It is God who selects the gifts, gives them to men according to his place and time. What is contrived is your crafting a static model as if what worked once should work anytime and any place as if God follows your schedule and rules. He doesn't. Luther had his moment, those sisters had theirs, and made a big contribution. Give God the glory. It's history.

Second, you are conflating Gods government and universal order with functioning of gifts. Sisters who submit to Gods governmental order bring strength to the churches and to the functioning of the Body. I have witnessed very talented sisters who functioned in the fellowship of the Body, including from the podium, who brought refreshing and insight to the churches. I have also witnessed equally talented sisters, thankfully only a few, who functioned independently and not in submission to Gods governmental arrangement and brought chaos and disruption to the churches. Equally talented and gifted, but two very different results.

You cannot convince me that your theories would have made a difference in practice because your theories are in a completely different realm from the divine revelation. But don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting that this is relevant everywhere in the world but I am saying that in the administration of God government it is crucial. For any properly functioning body its members know their function and operate within the limits of their God endowed capacity.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

you cannot possibly know if the function of Ruth Lee, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, ME Barber, etc. would be accepted today.They were then and they could now.

I "know" if I can possibly know anything; if I know water is wet, or corn is (usually) yellow. These women couldn't function today. Because no women can function today. So how could they function? By repeating the message of the Oracle? Is that what they did?

By pray-reading bullet points? Because that is what they did? By speaking 2 minutes on Sunday morning of what they 'enjoyed' from HWFMR?

How could they function today? How could they do anything like what they did?

Now, suppose by way of comparison, any other functional saint of yore would fall into the same issue. Wesley couldn't function today in the Methodist Church, or Luther in the Lutheran Church, or Edwards in the Congregational Church (the last one I do believe!). Does that make the "Lord's Recovery" hypocrisy any less glaring? Even if it were so? Where's the pure and spotless bride? Claiming everyone else is as sullied as she? Ignoring and hoping you not think about how she's built, at least in part, on the revelations and teachings and spiritual visions of those who today couldn't even share 5 minutes from the lectern?

And remember, it's not like the "Lord's Recovery" used these women and then pretended they didn't exist. No, they're loudly and repeatedly trumpeted as lionesses, pillars of the early "Recovery" church's vision. And not one could even give a Sunday message in a "Lord's Recovery" local church. Simply because they're women. Not one pamphlet from any of them. Not a page. Not a word.

I'm trying to think of a hypocrisy that could possibly be more glaring, either real or hypothetical. No dice - this one is the high peak, the consummation, the crystallisation. (of course I'm subjectively biased, I admit; emotionally invested in my argument. But still it's got to be somewhere near the top).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And remember, it's not like the "Lord's Recovery" used these women and then pretended they didn't exist. No, they're loudly and repeatedly trumpeted as lionesses, pillars of the early "Recovery" vision. And not one could even give a Lord's Day morning message in a "Lord's Recovery" local church. Simply because they are women. Not one pamphlet from any of them. Not a page.

I'm trying to think of a hypocrisy that could possibly be more glaring, either real or hypothetical. No dice - this one is at the high peak, the consummation, the crystallisation. (of course I'm subjectively biased, I admit; emotionally invested in my argument. But still it's got to be somewhere near the top).

At least these dear sisters have not had their names expunged from Lee's Book of Life-studies, as did John Ingalls and others who were also recovery pioneers.

[aron]

I have never heard , on this forum or elsewhere, how Lee could cite McDonough as an authoritative source, if women can't teach in the church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron "Interesting. You create a contrived scenario (monasteries and monks) and say Luther of 1523 wouldn't fit into the Lutheran church today. This hypocrisy, so-called, justifies the hypocrisy of "Local Churches" basing their teachings on women's ministries while no longer allowing them the same? Does this make the church pure and spotless in your eyes? And how much do you think God thinks like this? Really?"

If the Luther example is contrived so is your women's argument. That is the point.

First, you cannot possibly know if the function of Ruth Lee, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, ME Barber, etc. would be accepted today.They were then and they could now. It is God who selects the gifts, gives them to men according to his place and time. What is contrived is your crafting a static model as if what worked once should work anytime and any place as if God follows your schedule and rules. He doesn't. Luther had his moment, those sisters had theirs, and made a big contribution. Give God the glory. It's history.

Second, you are conflating Gods government and universal order with functioning of gifts. Sisters who submit to Gods governmental order bring strength to the churches and to the functioning of the Body. I have witnessed very talented sisters who functioned in the fellowship of the Body, including from the podium, who brought refreshing and insight to the churches. I have also witnessed equally talented sisters, thankfully only a few, who functioned independently and not in submission to Gods governmental arrangement and brought chaos and disruption to the churches. Equally talented and gifted, but two very different results.

You cannot convince me that your theories would have made a difference in practice because your theories are in a completely different realm from the divine revelation. But don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting that this is relevant everywhere in the world but I am saying that in the administration of God government it is crucial. For any properly functioning body its members know their function and operate within the limits of their God endowed capacity.

Drake

If Luther or Calvin joined the forum today UntoHim would call them antiquitated and misogynist.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How do you reconcile this with Paul's word in Titus?

3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Once again, I don't dispute Paul's word that elders need to be "husbands of one wife" not Male, or Men. A single man is not eligible to be an elder, nor is a divorced man, a remarried man, etc. If we are going to be "absolute" for the word, and get rid of the hypocrisy, then do it. Stop making excuses for your own practice while condemning everyone else. This rule by Paul was not about condemning others (including himself) but rather about setting forth a good example to the flock, even as the Apostles state clearly and plainly.

The reality is you can have a ministry even if you are divorced, remarried, single, or (God forbid) a sister. What you can't be if you are any of those is "the husband of one wife". Elders were set forth as an example of the flock. You don't have to be an elder to teach or have a ministry. However, the elders that were able to teach as well were "worthy of double honor".

2nd, if you are the "husband of one wife" when you are selected to be an elder then they are obviously selecting you and your wife. Based on Titus the wife needs to teach the sisters.

Why is this so hard for you to understand and acknowledge?

I think Calvin is not restricting women teaching women or children.

The topic of the matter is women teaching men in the public assembly.

The big issue I see for you and others is that you fail to admit any restrictions on women whatsoever, despite these restrictions being believed in Christianity for hundreds of years and also followed by the reformers.

So why don't I turn this around and ask, what do you think women can women do and what can't they do?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think Calvin is not restricting women teaching women or children.

The topic of the matter is women teaching men in the public assembly.

The big issue I see for you and others is that you fail to admit any restrictions on women whatsoever, despite these restrictions being believed in Christianity for hundreds of years and also followed by the reformers.

So why don't I turn this around and ask, what do you think women can women do and what can't they do?

Really, how do I fail to admit any restrictions? I admit every single restriction that Paul has given.

If you are referring to 1Tim 2, then you can't ignore the other verses of Paul in the books to Timothy and Titus. Nor should you ignore Paul's word in 1Corinthians.

In Post # 143 I explain 1Tim 2 in a way that does not contradict everything else Paul taught. However, if you read it as a blanket prohibition on women teaching then you are contradicting many other verses by Paul and others. That is a fatally flawed approach.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really, how do I fail to admit any restrictions? I admit every single restriction that Paul has given.

If you are referring to 1Tim 2, then you can't ignore the other verses of Paul in the books to Timothy and Titus. Nor should you ignore Paul's word in 1Corinthians.

In Post # 143 I explain 1Tim 2 in a way that does not contradict everything else Paul taught. However, if you read it as a blanket prohibition on women teaching then you are contradicting many other verses by Paul and others. That is a fatally flawed approach.

I have never put forward a blanket prohibition of women teaching.

My OP was in response to someone who had a question about women in leadership positions, i.e. in the "circle of elders":

They asked:

I'll just ask you one thing: Who do you see, in the leadership circle of LC, is a woman?


I'm genuinely curious if you know any sister that is in leadership position because of and only because of her spirituality.

It is about women teaching doctrine to men without the covering of the brothers in the assembly. I presumed that this was of her own accord and not by virtue of being the wife of an elder.

Women in leadership positions and particularly unmarried women without the covering of her husband, has been a universally accepted prohibition in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant/Reform churches for centuries.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have never put forward a blanket prohibition of women teaching.

My OP was in response to someone who had a question about women in leadership positions, i.e. in the "circle of elders":

They asked:

I'll just ask you one thing: Who do you see, in the leadership circle of LC, is a woman?


I'm genuinely curious if you know any sister that is in leadership position because of and only because of her spirituality.

It is about women teaching doctrine to men without the covering of the brothers in the assembly. I presumed that this was of her own accord and not by virtue of being the wife of an elder.

Women in leadership positions and particularly unmarried women without the covering of her husband, has been a universally accepted prohibition in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant/Reform churches for centuries.

How can women not be "in the circle of elders". Every single elder is to be "the husband of one wife" hence every single elder has a wife. How are these women not in the circle? Genesis 5 -- "male and female created He them and called their name Adam".

Yes, I knew many women in leadership positions in the LC, they were the wives of the elders. The elders will tell you and told you in their messages that 90% of the decisions regarding the church were influenced by the sisters. Their job was to merely say ok.

When I was in Taipei in the FTTT the office at Hall 3 for the training was run with an Iron fist by a sister, a wife of one of the leading elders.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How can women not be "in the circle of elders". Every single elder is to be "the husband of one wife" hence every single elder has a wife. How are these women not in the circle? Genesis 5 -- "male and female created He them and called their name Adam".

Yes, I knew many women in leadership positions in the LC, they were the wives of the elders. The elders will tell you and told you in their messages that 90% of the decisions regarding the church were influenced by the sisters. Their job was to merely say ok.

When I was in Taipei in the FTTT the office at Hall 3 for the training was run with an Iron fist by a sister, a wife of one of the leading elders.

I don't really disagree with you, but might lower the 90% a little (really depends on the elder, and their wife). I said something along these lines in my earlier posts, such as #4. But the wives leading the church under the covering of their husbands is not deemed sufficient for many on this forum it would seem. It did not seem so for the person QOSTA raising the issues, who wanted to know if any women got to a leadership "position" on the basis of their own spirituality (not her husband's, presumably).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So why don't I turn this around and ask, what do you think women can women do and what can't they do?

That is a great question, worthy of its own thread, and perhaps not suitable for this forum (alt views perhaps) since we will be leaving Witness Lee's little frog pond.

What do I think Women can do?

Let me change this question to "What do you think the New Testament says Women can do?"

I think Jesus word about moving mountains by faith applies equally to women and men.

I think Paul's word charging the aged women to teach the younger women how to have a good marriage is not some superficial nursery school teaching but a critical and essential ministry for the church.

I think that women have very clearly been given the authority to teach the women, who represent 2/3 of the church and are therefore a very, very significant group in the church.

I think that women (and men) need to have their head covered when they teach. A woman should wear a head covering as a good example to the other sister's, whereas a man shouldn't wear a head covering but all the same needs to practice having his head covered. For example, what I think is insignificant, what the Apostle's taught is significant. That is the reality of head covering.

I think Paul's word in 1Tim 2 is about dealing with the local authority, and talking about women "being in quietness" refers to not getting all agitated and provoking an outcry. In this context, when the church deals with the local government, the newspaper, the press or any other public discourse, in that situation only the elders should speak and everyone else does not have the right to say anything other than point to the elders to speak.

I think that Paul's word clearly states that when you choose "an elder" you are choosing a couple -- a man and a wife, and that has been ignored and overlooked by too many. I see this similar to Genesis 5 -- and He called their name Adam. Therefore it is either incredibly ignorant or else willfully blind to say that an elder is a brother. An elder is "the husband of one wife", hence the term elder includes two people, a husband and wife.

What does the NT teach that women can't do?

They can't do anything of themselves. Apart from Jesus they can do nothing.

If they want to move mountains and have a prevailing ministry they need to be joined to Jesus.

For example, Jesus gave an example of powerful, prevailing prayer -- and the person he used to illustrate this power was a widow. Her head was properly covered, she didn't step outside the lines, but even unrighteous judges had to bow before her prevailing prayer. In my experience just the threat of this is enough to cause fire to fall from the heavens.

Let me share a little experience I had. I worked with my church in a ministry for the persecuted Christians around the world. We chose those in Sudan, we had a picture of a child who was killed, we used a small child's coffin and we had a rally across the street from the UN when they opened their session in the beginning of September. We filled the park. One man that came was involved in a ministry in Sudan (they made a movie about him, you might have seen the movie). The rally made international news and a number of ambassadors said that this was when they first took the issue in Sudan seriously. Our message was if you don't care about your brother when you can do something, no one will care about you when it comes here.

The following year we planned to repeat this rally, only this time we were going to have the front row of our march to be aged women. Each woman would carry the picture of some atrocity taking place. If they couldn't walk that far all the better, we would put them in wheel chairs being pushed by young men. The rally was planned for September 13th, but it was cancelled after the attack on September 11th.

How about you, do you agree? Disagree? Please respond to each point specifically. Thanks.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

John Calvin's commentary on 1 Tim 2:12

If any one bring forward, by way of objection, Deborah and others of the same class, of whom we read that they were at one time appointed by the command of God to govern the people, the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound. Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above all law might do this; but, being a peculiar case, “Because it is a peculiar and extraordinary case.” this is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government.

So, according to John Calvin, who determines when supernatural, peculiar, and extraordinary acts of God are deemed necessary?

Is this something determined by the all-male board of Blendeds?

When men of God from around the world spoke up as prophets for God during every so-called "storm" in TLR, none of its leaders recognized this as a supernatural, peculiar, and extraordinary act of God.

I doubt if the current Blendeds could recognize a supernatural act of God if it hit them between the eyes.