SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Are Women Totally Forbidden to Teach?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Could this thread just be a case of pleonasm ?

 2007/6/10 12:51









 Re:

Quote:

GrannieAnnie wrote:
Could this thread just be a case of pleonasm ?

Never heard of that word! Had to look it up in Wikipedia

"Pleonasm is the use of more words (or even word-parts) than necessary to express an idea clearly. The word comes originally from Greek πλεονασμός ("excess"). A closely related, narrower concept (some would say a subset of pleonasm) is rhetorical tautology, in which essentially the same thing is said more than once in different words. Regardless, both are a form of redundancy. Pleonasm and tautology each refer to different forms of redundancy in speech and the written word."

In South Wales we talk of a "small little" something or other.

But the article also says pleonasms can be used for effect or to emphasise a point, or even clarify...


Mmmm :-? :-D

 2007/6/10 13:36
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776


 Re:

Quote:
Where does submission to authority begin and end? I recognise and respect the local leaders but can't submit to


Jeanette, earlier I had invited some discussion on the definition of submission, and also on authority, and feel, even yet, that we need to establish definitions - that is, the way they are used in the BIBLE, not the way the dictionary or our religious subculture defines them!

I don’t see anywhere in scripture any suggestion that at times we must NOT submit to someone! I suspect that (unconsciously) we use these words like the world would – in terms of a hierarchal chain – like you do what the one with more power than you tells you to – about following orders – as if our lives are lived military fashion.

I view Christ’s foot washing demonstration as his ultimate teaching model of submission: the servant position, servant leadership. Jesus even washed Judas’s feet! Is there ever a time when we shouldn’t “wash someone’s dirty feet” – ie submit?

I am wondering if we blur submission and authority in a way that makes them both hazy - and by doing so, we are misunderstanding Christ’s intentions for us - and that's how we create unnecessary disputes.

Now, re: authority – that’s another story. What is it?
What is spiritual authority? (Let's avoid pleonizing, or we'll have Sis GA on our case;-) )

EDIT: upon examination of hypotasso (submit) I see that it has a wider semantic range than I thought.
One explanation from the theological dictionary: "Wives are called to put aside their own agendas in submission to their husbands. The ideal, of course, is that this will be mutally voluntary."

The word "voluntary" seems to be an important aspect of submission: ex voluntarily submit to the Father, governing authorities.. etc

Diane


_________________
Diane

 2007/6/10 14:15Profile
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3700
Ca.

 Re:

Who has set us free? Who is the Christian's covering? How do we go back into bondage?

Christ has set us free. No man can set anyone free or be their covering.

Isa 30:1 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

So denying the covering of Christ brings us back into bondage, men and women.

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

1Cr 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.

2Cr 11:20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour [you], if a man take [of you], if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.

Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Where is a Christians freedom?

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

A woman does not need to be under headship anymore. Her headship is Christ, so is the mans.

1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours

How is the husband the head of the wife? As Christ, not in himself but in Christ.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

In This Love a woman only needs Christ as her head.

Ephesians 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

A woman in Christ is presented to Christ Himself not having spot or wrinkle or blemish, so she is Holy and acceptable to God in Christ Jesus.

This is the mystery of Christ in you the Hope of Glory. Like a woman covering which is her hair and her glory so is Christ her covering and Glory.

Ephesians 5:30-33 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Christ is Mystery in every relation ship especially to Christ and the Body of Christ the Church where male and female are equal.

This is our perfection where only one headship is necessary.

Colossians 1:25-29 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

And you women.

In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2007/6/10 20:57Profile









 Re: I'm guilty.

Hey LittleGift & Diane, you have a better dictionary than I do. Mine just says, from e-sword -
"Redundancy of words in speaking or writing; the use of more words to express ideas, than are necessary. This may be justifiable when we intend to present thoughts with particular perspicuity or force."


I've been made serverely aware that I am very guilty of "using more than are necessary" both in writing and in speaking. I fear it's because of the fear of not being understood.

I speak plainly, but too much. Ha.

When I used that "p" word, I thought of all of us on here as children who 'wanted' to be together. Were you ever forced as a kid to play with kids that were relatives, that you didn't want to be with or babysit kids you didn't really want to ? Ha.
And Mike's not babysitting against his will.
So that meant to me, we wouldn't be on any of these discussions unless we loved being together, simply because we 'do' love each other.
Otherwise, we wouldn't bother.
And, especially wouldn't bother to write such lengthy replies to each other.

That's what Pleonasm means to me here.
Our many attempts to explain ourselves is because basically we,(with some exceptions) like being together and sometimes feel we need to explain ourselves at length to maintain acceptance of sorts and just be understood by the people we care about.

Otherwise we'd just take our toys and go home. Us and Mike, or whomever else.

Love to the SI family. Pleonastical or not.
Amen !

Thanks for the Smilies sis.
:-D

It's never too late to have a great childhood. (:

 2007/6/10 21:11
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: In too far ...

Quote:
A while later, I realised (I believe) that you have read into what Forrest wrote, a completely different meaning from what she intended. And by 'intended', I don't for a split-second mean to imply that she wrote anything other than an open-hearted exposition of her technical stance.

It is particularly her description of the state a community would have had to have reached, before she would take on a pastoral role to them, which seemed to stir you up. Honestly, I think she was describing a situation in which there were no men, not that she [i]wanted[/i] there to be no men [i][b]so[/b][/i] that she could [i]take over[/i]. I mean, I think she was trying to describe a last-chance-saloon type of scenario - not [i]wishing[/i] it on anyone.

Also, I think you were ab-reacting to the idea of a woman 'priest', with God-given responsibility for the souls of others as an elder would be, as if this is a set-up which God never endorses. Again, I'm just thinking out loud here, that maybe the problem in your mind is more with the making of a claim to a [i]title[/i] of 'pastor'. And I suspect that all of us sisters would be in agreement there.



Thought I was reading it straight forward ... It really brings this whole thing full circle again.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

In all honesty it wasn't until this morning that I even began looking at commentaries in this regard. But maybe they could bring some clarity to this. That may make this a bit long and the main verse in question will do likewise in a subsequent reply.

[b]1Co 14:34-35 -[/b]
Here the apostle, 1. Enjoins silence on their women in public assemblies, and to such a degree that they must not ask questions for their own information in the church, but ask their husbands at home. They are to learn in silence with all subjection; but, says the apostle, I suffer them not to teach, 1Ti_2:11, 1Ti_2:12. There is indeed an intimation (1Co_11:5) as if the women sometimes did pray and prophecy in their assemblies, which the apostle, in that passage, does not simply condemn, but the manner of performance, that is, praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, which, in that age and country, was throwing off the distinction of sexes, and setting themselves on a level with the men. But here he seems to forbid all public performances of theirs. They are not permitted to speak (1Co_14:34) in the church, neither in praying nor prophesying. The connection seems plainly to include the latter, in the limited sense in which it is taken in this chapter, namely, for preaching, or interpreting scripture by inspiration. And, indeed, for a woman to prophesy in this sense were to teach, which does not so well befit her state of subjection. A teacher of others has in that respect a superiority over them, which is not allowed the woman over the man, nor must she therefore be allowed to teach in a congregation: I suffer them not to teach. But praying, and uttering hymns inspired, were not teaching. And seeing there were women who had spiritual gifts of this sort in that age of the church (see Act_22:9), and might be under this impulse in the assembly, must they altogether suppress it? Or why should they have this gift, if it must never be publicly exercised? For these reasons, some think that these general prohibitions are only to be understood in common cases; but that upon extraordinary occasions, when women were under a divine afflatus, and known to be so, they might have liberty of speech. They were not ordinarily to teach, nor so much as to debate and ask questions in the church, but learn in silence there; and, if difficulties occurred, ask their own husbands at home. Note, As it is the woman's duty to learn in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her; if it be her duty to ask her husband at home, it is his concern and duty to endeavour at lest to be able to answer her enquiries; if it be a shame for her to speak in the church, where she should be silent, it is a shame for him to be silent when he should speak, and not be able to give an answer, when she asks him at home.

2. We have here the reason of this injunction: It is God's law and commandment that they should be under obedience (1Co_14:34); they are placed in subordination to the man, and it is a shame for them to do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing ranks, which speaking in public seemed to imply, at least in that age, and among that people, as would public teaching much more: so that the apostle concludes it was a shame for women to speak in the church, in the assembly. Shame is the mind's uneasy reflection on having done an indecent thing. And what more indecent than for a woman to quit her rank, renounce the subordination of her sex, or do what in common account had such aspect and appearance? Note, Our spirit and conduct should be suitable to our rank. The natural distinctions God has made, we should observe. Those he has placed in subjection to others should not set themselves on a level, nor affect or assume superiority. The woman was made subject to the man, and she should keep her station and be content with it. For this reason women must be silent in the churches, not set up for teachers; for this is setting up for superiority over the man.

Matthew Henry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]1Co 14:34 -
Let your women keep silence[/b] ... - This rule is positive, explicit, and universal. There is no ambiguity in the expressions; and there can be no difference of opinion, one would suppose, in regard to their meaning. The sense evidently is, that in all those things which he had specified, the women were to keep silence; they were to take no part. He had discoursed of speaking foreign languages, and of prophecy; and the evident sense is, that in regard to all these they were to keep silence, or were not to engage in them. These pertained solely to the male portion of the congregation. These things constituted the business of the public teaching; and in this the female part of the congregation were to be silent. “They were not to teach the people, nor were they to interrupt those who were speaking” - Rosenmuller. It is probable that, on pretence of being inspired, the women had assumed the office of public teachers.

In 1 Cor. 11, Paul had argued against their doing this in a certain manner - without their veils 1Co_11:4, and he had shown, that “on that account,” and “in that manner,” it was improper for them to assume the office of public teachers, and to conduct the devotions of the church. The force of the argument in 1 Cor. 11: is, that what he there states would be a sufficient reason against the practice, even if there were no other. It was contrary to all decency and propriety that they should appear “in that manner” in public. He here argues against the practice on every ground; forbids it altogether; and shows that on every consideration it was to be regarded as improper for them even so much as “to ask a question” in time of public service. There is, therefore, no inconsistency between the argument in 1 Cor. 11: and the statement here; and the force of the whole is, that “on every consideration” it was improper, and to be expressly prohibited, for women to conduct the devotions of the church. It does not refer to those only who claimed to be inspired, but to all; it does not refer merely to acts of public preaching, but to all acts of speaking, or even asking questions, when the church is assembled for public worship. No rule in the New Testament is more positive than this; and however plausible may be the reasons which may be urged for disregarding it, and for suffering women to take part in conducting public worship, yet the authority of the apostle Paul is positive, and his meaning cannot be mistaken; compare 1Ti_2:11-12.

[b]To be under obedience[/b] - To be subject to their husbands; to acknowledge the superior authority of the man; see the note at 1Co_11:3.
As also saith the law - Gen_3:16, “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

[b]As also saith the law[/b] - Gen_3:16, “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Albert Barnes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]1Co 14:34 -
Let your women keep silence in the churches -[/b] This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are these: ישרפו דברי תורה ואל ימסרו לנשים yisrephu dibrey torah veal yimsaru lenashim, “Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.” This was their condition till the time of the Gospel, when, according to the prediction of Joel, the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well as the men, that they might prophesy, i.e. teach. And that they did prophesy or teach is evident from what the apostle says, 1Co_11:5, where he lays down rules to regulate this part of their conduct while ministering in the church.
But does not what the apostle says here contradict that statement, and show that the words in chap. 11 should be understood in another sense? For, here it is expressly said that they should keep silence in the church; for it was not permitted to a woman to speak. Both places seem perfectly consistent. It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, etc., in the synagogue; but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and, if they wished to learn any thing, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, etc. But this by no means intimated that when a woman received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, that she was not to obey that influence; on the contrary, she was to obey it, and the apostle lays down directions in chap. 11 for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, etc., in the Christian Church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues; together with the attempts to usurp any authority over the man, by setting up their judgment in opposition to them; for the apostle has in view, especially, acts of disobedience, arrogance, etc., of which no woman would be guilty who was under the influence of the Spirit of God.

[b]But - to be under obedience, as also saith the law -[/b] This is a reference to Gen_3:16 : Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. From this it is evident that it was the disorderly and disobedient that the apostle had in view; and not any of those on whom God had poured out his Spirit.

Adam Clarke

~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]1Co 14:34 - Let your women keep silence in the churches[/b],.... This is a restriction of, and an exception to one of the above rules, that all might prophesy; in which he would be understood of men only, and not of women; and is directed against a practice which seems to have prevailed in this church at Corinth, allowing women to preach and teach in it; and this being a disorderly practice, and what was not used in other churches, the apostle forbids and condemns, and not without reason:

[b]for it is not permitted unto them to speak[/b]; that is, in public assemblies, in the church of God, they might not speak with tongues, nor prophesy, or preach, or teach the word. All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority. It was not allowed by God that they should speak in any authoritative manner in the church; nor was it suffered in the churches of Christ; nor was it admitted of in the Jewish synagogue; there, we are told (b), the men came to teach, and the women לשמוע, "to hear": and one of their canons runs thus (c);

"a woman may not read (that is, in the law), בצבור, "in the congregation", or church, because of the honour of the congregation;''

for they thought it a dishonourable thing to a public assembly for a woman to read, though they even allowed a child to do it that was capable of it.

[b]But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.[/b] In Gen_3:16, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases.

(b) T. Hieros Chagiga, fol. 75. 4. & T. Bab. Chagiga, fol. 3. 1. (c) Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 12. sect. 17. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 23. 1.

John Gill

~~~~~~~~~


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/6/10 22:13Profile
UniqueWebRev
Member



Joined: 2007/2/9
Posts: 640
Southern California

 Re: A Woman Speaking Under Authority

Quote:

Christinyou wrote:
Who has set us free? Who is the Christian's covering? How do we go back into bondage?

Christ has set us free. No man can set anyone free or be their covering.

Isa 30:1 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

So denying the covering of Christ brings us back into bondage, men and women.

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

1Cr 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.

2Cr 11:20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour [you], if a man take [of you], if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.

Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Where is a Christian's freedom?

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

A woman does not need to be under headship anymore. Her headship is Christ, so is the man's.

1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.

How is the husband the head of the wife? As Christ, not in himself but in Christ.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

In This Love a woman only needs Christ as her head.

Ephesians 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

A woman in Christ is presented to Christ Himself not having spot or wrinkle or blemish, so she is Holy and acceptable to God in Christ Jesus.

This is the mystery of Christ in you the Hope of Glory. Like a woman covering which is her hair and her glory so is Christ her covering and Glory.

Ephesians 5:30-33 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Christ is Mystery in every relation ship especially to Christ and the Body of Christ the Church where male and female are equal.

This is our perfection where only one headship is necessary.

Colossians 1:25-29 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

And you women.

In Christ: Phillip





Mike,

Phillip has marshalled more defenses of my position than I ever could myself.

All the comentaries, even that which speak of Paul's ordinances on how women were to dress when they were going to speak and teach in the congregation, keep mentioning over and over one thing.

"AS IT WERE UNDER THE LAW"

We are under grace, or our salvation is false.

In grace, under Christ, there is no more male or female, bond or free.

If this were not so, what gifts could be poured out to me, a woman, in dreams and visions?

Or do you think that women are not given gifts of the Spirit?

Mike, you are so troubled by a sense of riven order that you do not even hear me when I say I do not want to take the authority of a Pastor, except under the most extreme conditions of war and tribulation.

You say I can be ordained, but it means nothing.

Well, it meant a good deal to me, to place myself in jeopardy in a time when speaking the truth about Jesus will get you put in jail all too soon even here in America.

By being ordained I went public with my ministry, my service to Christ. And you know something...I was absolutely terrified at the idea. It was God who called me, and He did not call me to be a pastor, and I do not teach in a church setting, nor take any authority over a man that that man does not want to be under, in Christ.

I was called to write. And in writing, I must teach, or there is no truth in me.

And that ordination that you write is as nothing...well, I at least take it seriously. Tell me, when you drive by an accident on the freeway or on a busy highway, do you back up half a mile to see if someone needs help or prayer? Yes, a clergy card came with my pointless little ordination, and the police, by law, have to let me by.

Will you pick up that responsibility for me, along with all the others, so I can sit at home, and tend to my housewifery?

I am ordained as a minister of the gospel, a servant of the good news, as an evangelist, by Dr. Ford of St. Luke Evangelical Ministries. I write about Jesus, and Christianity. And that is called teaching by just about anyone.

I have no husband to submit to...he was apostate, and an adulterer, and he deserted me after I was severly injured in an auto accident. So I submit to Christ, and since it is He that lifted me out of bed at 3:00 in the morning with a red hot staff in the diaphragm last July, if you have objections, speak to Him about it, for He is my cover, and my authority.

And in case you didn't know, I am your BROTHER in Christ, for I too am a Son, and an Heir of the promise.

I am distressed for your confusion about Spiritual Authority, but I am not confused in myself, nor have I any ambitions to do more than what God has already told me to do.

I don't set foot in any Congregational Church Setting, lest I overstep my authority! I would rather forgoe fellowship than endure some of the mealy mouthed, people pleasing rhetoric most Pastors are preaching these days. And since I can't stand up and correct such a man, I'll stay at home, and have church with those that will visit me.

And I don't even try to teach verbally any man I meet on the street, or in a store, or at a doctor's office, for I am very conscious of men's overgreat concern for their own authority. I ask those I meet to visit my website, and see if they like what they find there, and if they do, to pass the website on. No more, no less.

And do you know, I don't even attempt to [i]write[/i] with a sense of spiritual authority.

I speak casually in my articles about Jesus, and life as a Christian, and occasionally write an article, as prompted by the Holy Spirit, asking those who visit the site a few important questions, or pointing out the very real fact that everyone has to choose between Jesus and not-Jesus, or face the consequences.

I obey Paul's directives literally, even though I think he is much misunderstood by those that wish to retain all authority in their hands.

But even if I were not in obedience to Paul, I am commanded by God to pursue the Great Commission. I am not eliminated from my duty to speak of Jesus to others just because I am a woman. I am interested in guarding Christ's spiritual authority, not my own. As you have pointed out so clearly, I have none.

Whose spiritual authority are you interested in promoting?


Blessings,

Forrest


_________________
Forrest Anderson

 2007/6/11 5:59Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776


 Re: women: to teach or not to teach...

Suppose I as an authority (we’re pretending, okay?) wrote a letter to a particular family, and on page three wrote: “Please remove all your houseplants. Don’t leave any of them.” Of course, based on other dialogue and circumstances the recipients would see the importance of this directive.

But, let’s just suppose, that (imagining that I became a timeless authority) 900 years later people would read that same letter and as a result ban all houseplants. What they may not have realized was that when I gave the direction, many houseplants had a parasite that could harmfully affect humans – maybe excrete toxins. Maybe I had even mentioned on page one the issue of parasites, and the readers where not observing context. But maybe that was just common knowledge at that time, and that information was only available in the history books.

The attempts to be meticulously literal observers of my words would miss the mark terribly. After all, by their day plants were not diseased. In fact, NOT having them could harm them. They NEEDED houseplants absorb air pollution.

I highly suspect that if God would step onto our turf right now, he’d say, "No, no, no, you are missing my point!" A Bible expositor said: “Literal is not always correct!” In fact, it could be sheer rebelliousness(ex the Jewish religious leaders). This penchant for literalness may be even a vise of the devil who seeks to WEAKEN and destroy the church. Frankly, THAT is what has been happening for centuries because of this issue – and still is!

For example:
Just last week I encountered some Christian women who had grown up in conservative evangelical churches. They had fallen prey to TV “prophets”. I felt sickened listening to them. They invited me to join in their awesome “Bible” study. They also believe that they are not enlightened and God has called them to be teachers in the church, only the church won’t let them. Let me say, THESE WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE TEACHING ANYONE!

What I find so tragic is that when certain people are not expected to teach, there is not much concern about them learning (the pitfall of Jewish tradition) No wonder they fall into so many traps!

My concern is that while countless are falling prey to the devil because they are not properly grounded, far too many Christians are more concerned about whether women should teach men or not. People are missing God’s point!

I believe that if the church could let go of this obsession, and start noticing all the sheep (like the women) who are being devoured because they do not have their minds prepared and are not equipped to stand against the forces of evil, then maybe the church could get back to business: Make disciples.

Does it not mean ANYTHING to anyone that women in the first century couldn’t even read, let alone study the scriptures! They were totally uneducated. Would you want THEM teaching you today? Up until recently women were not educated like men – even my mom was not allowed to go past grade school because in her country higher learning was for the boys.

There may be a reason Paul talked about weak-willed women, old wives tales, etc. They were products of their society.

Is that the kind of product we’d still like to put out of our churches?
Is that the product of the New Covenant?(see Phillip's post)

Diane



_________________
Diane

 2007/6/11 9:50Profile









 Re:

Roadsign...

I'd like to think that the Holy Spirit had enough forsight to think of that before He gave Paul the words to write.

If we take your thinking out to it's logical conclusion it would be impossible for us to understand anything written in the Bible, and we could safely say that the Bible is not relevent today because there is no way we can possible understand what God [i]really[/i] meant. We're too far removed.

What you're doing is the same thing the homosexual "Christian" does to justify what they believe... you're just not as extreme as they are.

If this is how you approach scripture... it's a scarey approach, IMHO.

Krispy

 2007/6/11 10:35
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776


 Re:

Quote:
If we take your thinking out to it's logical conclusion it would be impossible for us to understand anything written in the Bible, and we could safely say that the Bible is not relevent today because there is no way we can possible understand what God really meant.




Might I suggest that this could be faulty logic?
By understanding the spirit of the word, and God's heart - will we not actually obey him better!!


Quote:
I'd like to think that the Holy Spirit had enough forsight to think of that before He gave Paul the words to write.


This is a valid point. I've always assumed that Paul had the 21 century American culture in mind when he wrote. I realize that I have to respect the fact that he did indeed write to real people in a real culture. It is our humble task to cross the bridge of culture, time, language, and situation and make sure we grasp the universal principle of God's truth. We can't throw any of it out!

I lack answers ... just processing my thoughts and trying to unravel the cobwebs that entangle us in fruitless Christian living. If I felt that long hair, skirts, silence, headcoverings, etc were the answer GOD INTENDED, I'd be there in a jiff, but I think that we may be misunderstanding our Lord, and also Paul. Not to diminish the value of any of that - it's just that God calls us to surrender our hearts and minds to him, not just our exteriors and outer behaviors.


_________________
Diane

 2007/6/11 12:06Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy