Women's Role

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Maybe Nell would like to expound and/or expand upon what I've posted here. Again, since this thread is about "Women's Role", I think it is fair and reasonable to let our sisters "take thWhe lead" in this thread.
-

UntoHim,

I believe "taking the lead" is overrated. I believe "authority" in the church is in the hands of our Lord Jesus, since all authority was given to Him.

Many years ago when I was a "childrens worker" in a locality, I never "officially" became a "leader". However, in fact, I was responsible. I was capable. I was loving and caring of the children in my group as well as the sister I was serving with. The sisters depended on me and the children loved me and all treated me with respect. Was I a de facto "leader"? Maybe? I never considered myself as being anything other than the person God made me to be. He placed me where He did, because of who and what I was because of Him. I flourished in that role because God did it. Not me.

One day, the Big Dog Childrens Work "coordinator" had a meeting with all the workers. While glaring at me, rudely, in front of everyone, with a nasty frown and angry eyes, he pronounced that sister so-and-so was now the leader of my group and turning his head toward me he said "If anybody has problems with that, they can come see me."

Did I give one rip that he publicly and rudely fired me from a job that was never mine...that I never asked for? Did his rude behavior change who I am or what I was? No. It didn't. Did he remove the gift God had given me...the gift of responsibility, capabilities, loving and caring for others? No. He did not. Big Dog never even bothered to tell me what I had done, if anything, to deserve such rude behavior and disrespect. So I stopped being me.

As I said, authority is overrated and misunderstood. Those who exercise authority often have no gift and are blind as a bat...as Big Dog was and probably still is. Those who may have even a small gift, as I believe I did, wouldn't touch a position of "authority" with a ten-foot-pole. I also believe that the more Evangelical rants about men having authority over women, the less he knows what he is talking about.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

One day, the Big Dog Childrens Work "coordinator" had a meeting with all the workers. While glaring at me, rudely, in front of everyone, with a nasty frown and angry eyes, he pronounced that sister so-and-so was now the leader of my group and turning his head toward me he said "If anybody has problems with that, they can come see me."

Did I give one rip that he publicly and rudely fired me from a job that was never mine...that I never asked for? Did his rude behavior change who I am or what I was? No. It didn't. Did he remove the gift God had given me...the gift of responsibility, capabilities, loving and caring for others? No. He did not. Big Dog never even bothered to tell me what I had done, if anything, to deserve such rude behavior and disrespect. So I stopped being me.

As I said, authority is overrated and misunderstood. Those who exercise authority often have no gift and are blind as a bat...as Big Dog was and probably still is. Those who may have even a small gift, as I believe I did, wouldn't touch a position of "authority" with a ten-foot-pole. I also believe that the more Evangelical rants about men having authority over women, the less he knows what he is talking about.

Nell

For the rest, rejoice in the Lord.

Beware of Big Dogs. Beware of Evil Workers.

For we serve by the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus. And have no confidence in the flesh. (Phil. 3.1-3)

[Drake]

In spite of Big Dog's bite... we need to follow the Bible.

I believe Evangelical has laid out a compelling biblical case. I do not believe the trend of the age should become filters to interpret the Bible. We should not allow the trend in feminism or organizational power to creep into our understanding of the Bible anymore than we would allow the Beatles to influence it as influential as such trends and personalities are to us. It is not misogynistic to present the clear teaching of the Bible and to retreat to that argument is in modern parlance an argument like unto "the Russians did it".

Nevertheless, I have benefited from the various viewpoints on this topic including the sidebar conversations as they added texture to the "heart of the matter". I understand what UntoHim meant by that phrase, yet, some of the sidebar conversations were relevant.

It seems to me, that part of the disagreement about the role of women in this forum and elsewhere is attributable to overly conflating two matters. The one is the Church, The Body, and the gifts to the Body. According to Ephesians it is the Lord Jesus who decides, selects, and gives the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Shepherds, Teachers to the universal church for the building of the Body. Those can be men or women. Examples in the Bible include women such as Priscilla and others Ohio mentioned early in this thread. History also shows women fulfilling these roles. Jessie-Penn Lewis was mentioned, Peace Wang, Ruth Lee, Mary McDonough, etc.. who knows how many? I don't. Peering through the long lens view of history it seems clear to me that for a certain place and time women were used by the Lord. Again, His selection, His timing, distributing gifts as He decides. I'm glad He is in charge.

The other aspect conflated with the above is perhaps even more crucial and is related to God's universal arrangement, the cosmic order (including the angelic family), the human order (male, female, children, elderly, masters-slaves), the governmental, cultural, societal orders, and the order in the churches and specifically in worship to God in and outside the meetings. ZNP touched on the context a few times. My take, net net,... all of these instructions, admonitions, practices, traditions, customs, etc. share the common backbone of God's authority. Not for authority's sake but for the building of the Body. Here is where the sisters play a crucial role because they are part of or related significantly to every order. Without the sisters it will not be possible to establish God's authority because God's authority is established in the churches through submission. By the sister's submission the testimony of God's authority is expressed and realized in the home, in the family, in the church, in worship to God in the meetings, and to angels.

Frankly, anyone can say they submit to Christ directly. We all do. But to submit to someone else established by God is where the real challenges lie and yet it is the greater testimony and facilitates the building of the Body of Christ. The God-ordained role of women is crucial to accomplishing God's purpose. Sill, whether that is understood or not, we should still follow the Bible.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

My take, net net,... all of these instructions, admonitions, practices, traditions, customs, etc. share the common backbone of God's authority. Not for authority's sake but for the building of the Body. Here is where the sisters play a crucial role because they are part of or related significantly to every order. Without the sisters it will not be possible to establish God's authority because God's authority is established in the churches through submission. By the sister's submission the testimony of God's authority is expressed and realized in the home, in the family, in the church, in worship to God in the meetings, and to angels.

Dear Drake,

You keep missing some of the most crucial elements in your posts. God's authority is established in the churches not just through the submission of the members for the building of the body. God's authority is established thru the godly living of church leaders which glorifies our Heavenly Father. Read your Bible again. Your biased teachings may get received by the LC rank and file, but not by those of us who were once among those deceived "rank and file." Where is your scripture that informs us that God's authority is established in the churches through the submission of the members? There are hundreds of verses for leaders, and nearly only one instructing the members to submit, (Heb 13.17) and careful reading of this verse holds the leaders to lofty standards, rather than to establish God's authority.

The Bible is filled with instructions for proper leaders. Why do you think that is? Why do you think both Jesus and the apostles would warn them not to lord it over and to rule the church as the Gentiles do? Why do you think that both Jesus and the apostles established themselves as our patterns? They were patterns of submission to our Heavenly Father. Without them firstly living a life under authority, it would be impossible for the saints to live under God's authority. Apostle Paul basically wrote whole books concerning how he was a pattern for us to also live under the authority of God.

WL and LSM, however, short-cutted and short-circuited God's divine arrangement concerning submission to authority. WL demanded submission from us without his own submission to God. He broke all the rules, and then expressed outrage that the "lines of submission" were broken. He rejected the narrow way under the Headship of Christ and then wondered why others refused to submit to him.

(Evidences and proofs of these facts have been provided in numerous other posts which you have refused to respond to.)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

In spite of Big Dog's bite... we need to follow the Bible.

. . . . I do not believe the trend of the age should become filters to interpret the Bible.

But the evidence of the varied "commands" in different places would seem to indicate that if it is a matter of "command," then the trends of not only the age, but the particular culture into which a particular thing is written is at least part of how the "command" came to be. With that in mind, it would seem that there is less "command" in it and more of a desire to be within the world/culture without being negatively tainted by it. (in the world, but not of it)

The thought that everything has a "command" that is important and must be followed is undermined and an intent to have righteous people living in their cultures becomes more apparent. The intent was not certain and settled rules, but setting things right within the context in which they were found.

And when you look at some of the examples in the gospels, even things that were thought of as definite rules were effectively ordered to be ignored by Jesus. When he chastised the men who brought the woman caught in adultery to Him, he effectively told them that justice was his, not theirs. Their part was not to judge and punish, but to love.

In fact, he constantly was engaged with the sinners, but judging the religious because they were always tossing their rules around to make the lives of sinners (and saints alike) difficult.

In short (too late) I think that so much of what we raise as "commands" out of Paul's writings cannot be made into such when put up against the very nature of the One that it is supposed to be explaining. The nature of Jesus' teachings and actions would insist that we are busy misreading Paul. That we are turning the commentary into the source and the true source — the gospels — into near irrelevancy. You must start with the gospels and use the epistles to shed light on the gospels. If you can't even find it in the gospels, then if you think you are getting a command on it in the epistles, you are probably misreading them.

[zeek]

The Bible doesn't teach that men and women are equal? Too bad for the Bible. It was written and edited predominantly [totally?] by men from the standpoint of a patriarchal society, so it shouldn't be surprising. There are hints in the gospels that Jesus practiced otherwise.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Bible doesn't teach that men and women are equal? Too bad for the Bible. It was written and edited predominantly [totally?] by men from the standpoint of a patriarchal society, so it shouldn't be surprising. There are hints in the gospels that Jesus practiced otherwise.

The only support these views can get from the bible is if they argue biblical ignorance (that the bible is silent) or biblical error (that whole passages are mistranslated).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

But the evidence of the varied "commands" in different places would seem to indicate that if it is a matter of "command," then the trends of not only the age, but the particular culture into which a particular thing is written is at least part of how the "command" came to be. With that in mind, it would seem that there is less "command" in it and more of a desire to be within the world/culture without being negatively tainted by it. (in the world, but not of it)

The thought that everything has a "command" that is important and must be followed is undermined and an intent to have righteous people living in their cultures becomes more apparent. The intent was not certain and settled rules, but setting things right within the context in which they were found.

And when you look at some of the examples in the gospels, even things that were thought of as definite rules were effectively ordered to be ignored by Jesus. When he chastised the men who brought the woman caught in adultery to Him, he effectively told them that justice was his, not theirs. Their part was not to judge and punish, but to love.

In fact, he constantly was engaged with the sinners, but judging the religious because they were always tossing their rules around to make the lives of sinners (and saints alike) difficult.

In short (too late) I think that so much of what we raise as "commands" out of Paul's writings cannot be made into such when put up against the very nature of the One that it is supposed to be explaining. The nature of Jesus' teachings and actions would insist that we are busy misreading Paul. That we are turning the commentary into the source and the true source — the gospels — into near irrelevancy. You must start with the gospels and use the epistles to shed light on the gospels. If you can't even find it in the gospels, then if you think you are getting a command on it in the epistles, you are probably misreading them.

If Paul desired to be within the world culture that the church was in at the time, then why was Paul applying Jewish customs to Gentile churches (outside of Israel)?

For example, Paul's instructions for women to be silent in the Gentile church of Corinth comes from the Jewish temple system which limited the role of women.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For example, Paul's instructions for women to be silent in the Gentile church of Corinth comes from the Jewish temple system which limited the role of women.

This is your presumption. The amount of "customs" that were decidedly not-Jewish are noteworthy and make a general reference that Paul was creating churches with Jewish customs in the Gentile world.

Besides, when discussing some of his "this way" kind of teachings, he stopped short and declared that there is no such custom in the churches.

So Jesus, and Paul, were busy throwing off the forms and customs . . . . except for assembly boundaries and what to do with those second-class women.

For a group that claims no more law, you sure have a lot of laws.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

For a group that claims no more law, you sure have a lot of laws.

Yeah, lots of New Testament laws added to the Old Testament laws.

So why Christianity? The church could have stayed Jewish, with new and improved laws ; Judaism 2.0. That's what we've got today.

And we want to treat woman with attitudes that come from the Stone Age, transferred up thru the Iron age, and into the New Testament age.

When are we ever going to evolve out of the ancient more primitive days & ways? The Bible is Canonized/fixed, so I guess never.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is your presumption. The amount of "customs" that were decidedly not-Jewish are noteworthy and make a general reference that Paul was creating churches with Jewish customs in the Gentile world.

Besides, when discussing some of his "this way" kind of teachings, he stopped short and declared that there is no such custom in the churches.

So Jesus, and Paul, were busy throwing off the forms and customs . . . . except for assembly boundaries and what to do with those second-class women.

For a group that claims no more law, you sure have a lot of laws.

If you are referring to 1 Corinthians 11:16:
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.

, your interpretation is wrong

Ellicott:

The argument, and the appeal to their own good sense having been completed, the Apostle now adds that if, after all, some one continues to argue the matter captiously, and is not satisfied with the reason given, the answer to such a one must be simply—We, the Apostles and the churches of God, have no such custom as that women should pray and teach with uncovered head.


If we want to get technical and look at the Greek, the verse is related to this verse:

1 Cor 11:2 Now I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Paul was delivering ordinances, laws, if you like to the churches. One of them was head coverings. This law was applied to all the churches of God (1 Corinthians 11:16).

The contentious ones would be those who disagree with Paul's instructions regarding women and head coverings.

Gill:

But if any man seem to be contentious,.... That is, if anyone will not be satisfied with reasons given, for men's praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered, and women's praying and prophesying with their heads covered; but will go on to raise objections, and continue carping and cavilling, ..

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For the rest, rejoice in the Lord.

Beware of Big Dogs. Beware of Evil Workers.

For we serve by the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus. And have no confidence in the flesh. (Phil. 3.1-3)

Ameeeeennnnn.

-N