Women's Role

[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

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).

That is why IMO Paul says what he does. 2/3 of the church is women, if you allow women to take leadership positions without men you marginalize men to the point that the church becomes 90% women with a few passive men who don't care. I have seen this played out in various churches with female leaders.

Also this does nothing to set a positive example for families.

As for the question about "did any women get a leadership position based on their own spirituality (not her husband's)" this I feel is the error. How exactly do we know what the woman's spirituality is? If her family is a mess, her husband is a mess, her children are a mess, but she is "spiritual"? You can have a ministry without being an elder. You can publish books, teach, evangelize, etc. Go for it. No one needs to "give you" a leadership position. But if you are truly "spiritual", taking care of widows and orphans, teaching the younger sisters, leading by example then who cares if someone "gives you" a leadership position.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

. . wives leading the church under the covering of their husbands is not deemed sufficient for many on this forum it would seem..

Of course there would be difference of opinion [interpretation] and even practice. I've met with believers where the women wouldn't even say, "Amen" after the men spoke because Paul said that they should be silent in church. If they had anything to say, they could say it to their husband at home. Paul wrote it, it's in the canon of scripture, case closed.

On the other hand, I've met with groups where the women could stand at the lectern and give a message on Sunday morning. Times have changed, societal roles have evolved, and to some extent the church meetings reflect this.

And I never felt led to argue with members of either group. Let each one(s) be led of the Lord as they see fit. We don't receive each other to argue or pass judgments. What I object to is the two-faced hypocrisy of saying one thing, and expecting universal conformity, and yet in one's own practice so blatantly disregarding it. Evoking Dora Yu or Peace Wang, as if their ministries could exist for five minutes with you.

Or saying, "Women can't teach in the church", and then waving citations of Penn-Lewis and McDonald et al as if they were independent arbiters of revealed truth; are you really that desperate for the veneer of credibility for your teachings? And is your audience truly that dull, unperceptive, and/or stupefied? Or, cowed and intimidated? It's hard to fathom that in the year 2017 such "ministry" could have much traction with the public.

But, I was there, once. Amen, Lord, amen; even so, come Lord Jesus.

[Drake]

Aron>"Yes, the distinction is clear. Then why does LSM cite womens' teachings as if they had authority?"

But, is it? You say it is but then you say things as if it were not.

Aron, please clarify this. Do you agree or not agree with Paul's charge in I Timothy 2:12? Is it applicable today or was it for another place and time, outdated?

If you agree with it then how is it to be practiced? If you don't agree with it then why not and on what basis do you disregard it?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron>"Yes, the distinction is clear. Then why does LSM cite womens' teachings as if they had authority?"

But, is it? You say it is but then you say things as if it were not.

Aron, please clarify this. Do you agree or not agree with Paul's charge in I Timothy 2:12? Is it applicable today or was it for another place and time, outdated?

If you agree with it then how is it to be practiced? If you don't agree with it then why not and on what basis do you disregard it?

Drake

I'm conservative, actually. But I don't force the issue. Others are obviously much more progressive, and I respect their convictions, and their passion. This is an issue where perhaps Paul put it best, "Let each be persuaded in his/her own mind."

Or, do you think we should divide the church in the name of [false] unanimity, here - especially when, as I've repeatedly said, the "Lord's Recovery" doesn't even practice what they preach? What gospel are you preaching, then - a 'Witness Lee is always right; even when he (and his Blended Minions) contradict themselves, or follow it selectively (why no head coverings), and ignore their own supposedly iron-clad directives' gospel?

Again, why did Lee cite women as authoritative sources? And why pretend that a Dora Yu or Peace Wang would get the 'right hand of fellowship' for their ministry, even for 5 minutes, like Paul and his ministry to the gentiles, coming alongside the twelve in Jerusalem? Why the glaring contradictions, and why such pretense? Because to end the pretense would end the fantasy? And to end the fantasy would end the ministry? And to end the ministry would end the church? Are you really built upon such sand?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron>"Yes, the distinction is clear. Then why does LSM cite womens' teachings as if they had authority?"
But, is it? You say it is but then you say things as if it were not.
Aron, please clarify this. Do you agree or not agree with Paul's charge in I Timothy 2:12? Is it applicable today or was it for another place and time, outdated?
If you agree with it then how is it to be practiced? If you don't agree with it then why not and on what basis do you disregard it?
Drake

I think it is very applicable to today. I am always reminded of the scene in the Godfather where Sonny speaks up at a meeting between Don Vito Corleone and Sollozo. Afterwards the Godfather rebukes him saying to never let anyone outside the family know how you feel. As a result of this mistake Sollozo tries to kill Don Corleone this leads down a path where Sonny is killed.

Likewise in 1Tim 2 the context is the church dealing with the gentile authorities. In this context the church must speak with a single voice. Satan's strategy has been to divide and conquer, a direct result of being able to see where the fault lines are. This is the context that I see described in which Paul forbids the woman to speak, much as Vito Corleone forbid Sonny to speak.