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: Are Women Totally Forbidden to Teach?


Hi Mike,

Thank you for the long exposition of what's been on your mind.

I was wondering if you have any thoughts on Paul's use of the word 'your' in 1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but [i]they are[/i] to be submissive, as the law also says.

And why do you think Paul mentions 'the law', when we all know we have been delivered from it?


Btw, I can't have read the MacArthur article closely enough, because I didn't see that reference - which I can't find now - to no 'women priests'. It was associated with two other things that the writer said women didn't do, one of which (I think) was to do with being head of State. Presumably (but just guessing), people like the Queen of Sheba would have been, in that writer's mind, simply pagan.

But, Jewish women were allowed to inherit property and widows also had status, I believe.

However, if I'd seen that which Diane quoted, of women not being allowed to speak in church AT ALL, I'd have said more this morning. Now, I need to go back and find the post philologos wrote to describe the kind of freedom the sisters have in the church where he is one of the eldership. I am encouraged that you included

[i]'Only a spiritual resurrection will restore her to her true place, as the help-meet for man.'[/i]

at the end of your quote from Albert Barnes. Amen.

I hope that wasn't an oversight. ;-)

 2007/6/23 18:18









 Re:

Quote:

crsschk wrote:
[url=http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/54-15.htm]God's High Calling for Women Part 2[/url]
All, yet particular emphasis midway down to the end.

We must get this right, it is imperative. There are things being disputed elsewhere also out of spiritual order, some that are quite revolting, speculative. An emphasis on the aberrations and 'exceptions', worldly leaven of psychology, pragmatism, 'what if' scenarios. Divorce, remarriage, abortion. Reactions and defending. Gender bending. Accusations and one up man-ship. Some of it subtle, some overt, some appalling...

Mike, dear Brother, I know... But that is not what this thread is really all about!

Yes of course there [i]are[/i] all the terrible blurring of distinctions and depising of holiness, and compromising with false religions, and getting things out of Divine order. No-one is denying these things, and we are grieved at them, as you are grieved...

Would you accuse us then of rebelling against God, we who are your brothers and sisters in Christ, who seek to love and obey Him in all things (even when we fall short, that is our aim)? Would you force us into the same category as those who despise the Word of God and deliberately go their own way? - Just because some of us seek to understand the Word [i]behind[/i] the words of Scripture - or do not interpret the written Word quite as you do?

Don't you hear our [i][u]hearts[/u][/i] - even of those who seem to you to be "rebels". Don't you hear our plea to be allowed to sit at Jesus' feet and hear His Word?

Don't you hear the pain of some who have been abused and despised and belittled by men all their lives - within and outside the Church in some cases -?

Mike, I "hear" your pain at what you interpret as compomise and rebellion even in the Church, (even in SI, and no doubt it's true of some individuals and what is discussed on some threads, but not this one).

I also "hear" the other struggle that is going on (been there, done that, recognise the "symptoms").

So why don't you hear the pain of some of these ewe lambs - HIS lambs - your sisters?

Would you take from us that "better thing" (Luke 10:42)that Mary chose?

Jesus said to Peter, "feed my lambs", not "Chastise my lambs when they bleat too much and will not listen"!

At the moment I don't think you are listening either!

I'm not talking about the words. You are not listening to the [i]spirit[/i] of your sisters. You listen to the words and react to the words, and all the time still miss what we are really "saying".

And maybe what the Lord is saying too.

In His Love

Jeannette

 2007/6/23 18:28
crsschk
Member



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

 Understanding

[b]Law[/b]

G3551
νόμος
nomos
nom'-os
From a primary word νέμω nemō (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), generally (regulation), specifically (of Moses [including the volume]; also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle): - law.

No Greek exegete here but from a glance about it appears this can be used in a number of fashions, even for instance the 'royal law'

Jas 2:8 If1487 ye(3305) fulfill5055 the royal937 law3551 according2596 to the3588 Scripture,1124 Thou shalt love25 thy4675 neighbor4139 as5613 thyself,4572 ye do4160 well:2573

My plain understanding would be that of "figuratively (a principle)" as it seems to be applied or derived rather from the rest of the context, as in 'this is known' and understood. Otherwise it would be the contradiction that many seem to think that it is.

Don't know that 'your' in 1 Cor 14;34 has any implications other than addressing them, other versions have it as 'the'.

Quote:
It was associated with two other things that the writer said women didn't do, one of which (I think) was to do with being head of State. Presumably (but just guessing), people like the Queen of Sheba would have been, in that writer's mind, simply pagan.


Of course this came to mind as well, not dissimilar to the case of Deborah, certain prophetess, the other matters brought to bear on all this. It not to either wholesale dismiss nor approval of bearing that dislodges these things from there places. Rather it is to take note broadly, predominantly, the general rule of things. I do find it interesting so much can be over enforced of exception and aberration and that is where many would dwell, on those very things. That they are there is not in dispute, that they are to buttress and displace general principles ... peculiar.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/6/23 18:50Profile









 Re: Understanding

Seems to be Joel 2 week on many threads.

It's no longer than some posts, so may as well see it again. Others have posted it also this week.

[b]Joe 2:1 Blow a ram's horn in Zion, and shout an alarm in My holy mountain. Let all those living in the land tremble. For the day of Jehovah approaches; it is near,
Joe 2:2 a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, as the dawn spread out on the mountains, a great and a strong people. There has never been the like, nor shall there ever be again to the years of many generations;
Joe 2:3 a fire devours before it, and a flame burns behind it. The land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them is a desolate wilderness; yea, also there is no escape to them.
Joe 2:4 Their appearance is like horses; and as horsemen, so they run.
Joe 2:5 They shall leap like the noise of chariots on the tops of the mountains, like the noise of flames of fire that devour the chaff, as a strong people set in order for battle.
Joe 2:6 Before their face, the people shall be pained; all faces collect heat.
Joe 2:7 They shall run as mighty ones; they shall go up the wall as men of war. And they each go on his way, and they do not change their paths.
Joe 2:8 And each does not press his brother; they each go in his paths. And if they fall behind their weapon, they shall not be cut off.
Joe 2:9 They shall rush on the city; they shall run on the wall; they shall climb up on the houses; they shall enter in by the windows, like a thief.
Joe 2:10 The earth shall quake before them, the heavens shall shake. The sun and moon shall grow dark, and the stars shall gather in their light.
Joe 2:11 And Jehovah shall give His voice before His army, for His camp is very great. For he who does His Word is strong. For the day of Jehovah is very great and terrifying, and who can endure it?
Joe 2:12 Yet even now turn to Me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning, declares Jehovah.
Joe 2:13 Yea, tear your heart, and not your robes; and turn to Jehovah your God. For He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and He pities concerning the evil.
Joe 2:14 Who knows if He will turn and have pity and leave a blessing behind Him, a food offering and a drink offering for Jehovah your God?

Joe 2:15 Blow a ram's horn in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly.
Joe 2:16 Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, gather the elders, gather the children, and those who suck the breasts. Let the bridegroom go out of his room, and the bride out of her room.
Joe 2:17 Let the priests, ministers of Jehovah, weep between the porch and the altar; and let them say, Have pity on Your people, O Jehovah, and do not give Your inheritance to shame, for a proverb among those of the nations. Why should they say among the peoples, Where is their God?
Joe 2:18 Then Jehovah will be jealous for His land and have pity on His people.
Joe 2:19 Yea, Jehovah will answer and say to His people, Behold, I will send you grain, and wine, and oil, and you shall be satisfied with it. And I will no more make you a curse among the nations.

Joe 2:20 But I will remove the northern army far from you, and I will drive him into a dry and desolated land with his face toward the eastern sea, and his rear toward the western sea. And his stench shall come up, and his ill odor shall come up, because he was doing great things.

Joe 2:21 Fear not, O land, be glad and rejoice, for Jehovah is doing great things.
Joe 2:22 Fear not, beasts of the field, for the pastures of the wilderness grow green, for the tree bears its fruit, the fig tree and the vine give their strength.
Joe 2:23 Then be glad, sons of Zion, and rejoice in Jehovah your God. For He has given to you the early rain according to righteousness, and He will cause the rain to come down for you, the early rain and the latter rain in the first month.
Joe 2:24 And the floors shall be full with grain, and the wine vats shall overflow with wine and oil.
Joe 2:25 And I will restore to you the years which the swarming locust has eaten, the locust larvae, and the stripping locust, and the cutting locust, My great army which I sent among you.
Joe 2:26 And you shall eat fully and be satisfied; and you shall praise the name of Jehovah your God, who has dealt wondrously with you. And My people shall not be ashamed forever.
Joe 2:27 And you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am Jehovah your God, and there is no other. And My people shall not be ashamed forever.

Joe 2:28 And it shall be [u]afterward[/u], I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh. And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.
Joe 2:29 And also I will pour out My Spirit on the slaves and on the slave-girls in those days.

Joe 2:30 And I will give signs in the heavens and in the earth: blood, and fire, and columns of smoke.
Joe 2:31 The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of Jehovah.

Joe 2:32 For it shall be, all who shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be saved. For salvation shall be in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, as Jehovah has said, and among the survivors whom Jehovah shall call.[/b]

 2007/6/23 19:11
crsschk
Member



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

 Re: No, not really

Hi Jeannette,

Quote:
Would you accuse us then of rebelling against God, we who are your brothers and sisters in Christ, who seek to love and obey Him in all things (even when we fall short, that is our aim)? Would you force us into the same category as those who despise the Word of God and deliberately go their own way? - Just because some of us seek to understand the Word behind the words of Scripture - or do not interpret the written Word quite as you do?



No, I would not and believe it is part of the nature of this forum that things get botched both by the writer as well as the hearer. Mentioned this somewhere that there is a diving in and out of things particular and those general. That alone can be multifaceted if one is speaking of spiritual truths generally and applying them specifically.
Quote:
But that is not what this thread is really all about!

Again the 'trouble' if you want to call it that. These things take on a life of their own because of the call and response nature of it. A question is raised or a statement is stated and the response can bring in other matters and so on. It can be a tricky proposition sometimes because on the one hand if things are still closely tied it seems better to allow them a voice that is coherent to the subject matter. If they do start to go too far afield another posting is often better. To have two or three on the same issues or topics running concurrently leads to a lot of confusion.

Quote:
At the moment I don't think you are listening either!

I'm not talking about the words. You are not listening to the spirit of your sisters. You listen to the words and react to the words, and all the time still miss what we are really "saying".



Could the reverse be true?

Still don't recognize this matter of 'struggle' that is being mentioned occasionally, this is not about myself personally. What makes it that there is a bleating of the sheep here by denoting a spirit of disobedience or rebellion? I am not indifferent completely to everything stated just because there is no reply to it. Again, much of this is being poured in from the outside.

This may be difficult to accept but part and parcel of this whole matter is that when the sisters do get alarmed and up in arms about things we are to somehow not dispute them for the very reasons you are expressing. It appears to be a double standard and very much in line with a great deal of what I have been expressing here.

Go back towards the beginning as example. If we took the 'Listen up gentleman!' comment for instance and turned it around to 'Listen up ladies!' What kind of backlash could we have expected from it? Is it too much to make mention of here? The point is that these things can be all taken the wrong way ... if we let them. Other times they need to be taken in the right way but cannot see how that can be done other than by individual scrutiny.




_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/6/23 19:31Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776


 Re:

An audio: [url=http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/356]The Role of Women in Life and Ministry [/url] by Catherine Kroeger taken from the Veritas Forum

The speaker's voice is intense, but if you hang in (it's long) - the latter part deals with the issue of Gnosticism - very revealing - as it relates to women in the NT church. She discusses Eve, childbirth, etc.

... other thoughts to consider ...


Diane


_________________
Diane

 2007/6/23 19:56Profile
crsschk
Member



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

 Re: Off the path

[i]I do not want to demean doctrine; doctrine is truth. But there is something to which doctrine points - He who is the truth, the reality, the ineffable, unspeakable and ultimate reality of God Himself. God forbid that we should fall short of that glory, of that reality, and of that truth because we are satisfied with the truths about the truth, say, the truths about the end times. Is there anything more brittle and doctrinaire than someone who is equipped with a knowledge of the last days, who condemns the church as Babylon and celebrates an elitist type of sonship? These evils issue from merely being correct in our brain box. We have not really seen because we have not really entered.

Do not fall short of the glory. That entering is so dear to God, that He will not think it too extravagant to bring us to the place of intolerable suffering so we can experience and fully see the joy of the light of God. This is the fellowship of His suffering. The quest for truth is a suffering to those who have to proclaim it without themselves having a full comprehension of it, yet are unable to withhold the proclamation. And it is a suffering for those who have to live with such people and respond and bear up under what seems to them points of remarkable collision and threatening heresy.[/i] ~ Art Katz

Peculiar thing that there is such a compulsion to keep at this ... Amazed that so much can be going on simultaneously, Art's present state being something of ... coming or going? Praying the Lords will regardless, questions and mingled prayer ... Who will pick up [i]this[/i] mantle? Can [i]You[/i] Oh Lord spare him to us for another 15 years? One? Or better that he find his ultimate rest now ...

It is all backdrop and current, active, mingled, ongoing. The reason for the above is the striking similarity to what is happening here in these long discourses, this ... [i]'The quest for truth is a suffering to those who have to proclaim it without themselves having a full comprehension of it, yet are unable to withhold the proclamation.'[/i] It is not to further yet another wrong notion, just the compulsion to do so that I am finding so ... inexplicable. Why is this such a compelling to enter into all this, why the seemingly narrow focus to principle and first inception, the constant hammering away at it all?

Why keep coming back to it? There is a certain [i]reason[/i] for not addressing all the other things and it has to do with that narrowness to getting at something and practically ignoring while not again being indifferent to all the other things being spoken.

The usurping has more to do with all, everyone and it has this seeming development needed even in more development. The '[i]out of order[/i] aspect no different. What did strike me again was by way of picking up on the History Channel last night yet another "Books of the Bible" or more accurately the [i]"Lost books[/i] there of. To shorten the length to the point, it brought things back around to 'canonicity' again and the same spiritual sense that always happens watching these things; Namely, that historians and researchers, intellectuals, theologians etc. [i]can[/i] and usually often do miss it by a mile. That is not the grand whitewash it could seem to infer, many things that cause a hmmmm, a perhaps. Likely [i]some[/i] truth in it all. But when they bring in these outside text's the striking thing is that they are [i][b]out of character[/b][/i] more than anything. I cannot see those entrusted to codify scripture into canon doing so by ... well, a group of mere intellectuals deciding by some democratic approach, taking a vote, relying on their fallen opinion as the final arbitration and determination. It just seems quite evident that these texts left out are self refuting in their own right.

To apply that here, could not but draw the similarities and the ab-junction towards wondering if the matter of [i]out of order[/i] isn't superseded by [i]out of character[/i]. That, [i]that[/i] is the issue and marrow at hand here. That spiritually 'we' are in 'rebellion' because we are acting out of character and therefore 'out of order'. And yes, it is dependent on many other factors, those things that seem to be driving a few here nut's that there has been so little given to ... recognition of it all.

I have been somewhat 'jacked up' about all this for I don't know how long now and it is still a peculiar thing as to [i]why[/i] exactly. I appeal again to the out take of the out take above. It's observation and ... questioning ... over mandate and 'statement'. Theres room, always room for adjustment. But am not about to start reversing these things to codify or pacify even my own chagrin or at times 'deciding' that I am all but finished with it and will return no more. Have had to even give that up and plod along despite it all ... Is this all too much here? Seriously, I sense a bit of hyperbole in some of it, but the compelling to [i]get some place[/i] ...

Had to come back however and address, leave off the particular line and bent and veer off where it seems I was not ready for yet an anticipation of getting around to it certainly. The compulsion to have some kind of true, real, definitions as much as they are possible to this whole ruckus 'controversy'. This;

Quote:
THINK! Your wife, your sister, your daughter, your mother, molested, incested, raped, beaten, and verbally abused until she is a shell of what she should be, reaching a precarious hold on sanity due to Jesus, called by Jesus in the end days to do what men will not do, and then forbidden to speak by men, regardless of their calling by God.

Please, re-read all four sermons from this viewpoint.



Though earlier I seemingly dismissed this and it does still seem to be yet out in front ... It is both misnomer and yet fact. Some of it. Again, this;
Quote:
do what men will not do

Is dangerous and I believe an usurping, [i]Who[/i] makes this determination? You? Me? Can you back it scripturally? And I mean that in the deepest sense. When women start determining and deciding pragmatically how, what and when things are to be done, judiciously taking it upon themselves are they not [i]out of order[/i], out of [i]character[/i], out of [i]sorts[/i] with themselves as [u]persons[/u]? Likewise, when the men turn about and do the very same thing, the same determining and deciding ... is it not fleshly, natural better, [i]carnal[/i], this reasoning? Men in womens roles, and women in the mans. This is largely the whole didactic and redundant point all along.

It is still not everything and does not quite explain everything either. There is all the difference in 'tasks' and practical matters that are not so easily squared away. 'Teaching' is something that this whole topic was first brought to bear upon and it has extrapolated into all the tentacles of where and when and in right functionality and I don't know that there has been a particular point of addressing it yet, personally that is. Still in the observation mode if you will of first principles and ... the rest is quite redundant indeed.

To turn away from it all momentarily ... pardon the exuberance here, I don't understand it even fully! Besides myself and still somehow, mostly, calm, what a paradox!

Leaving out the disputing part ...

[i]THINK! Your wife, your sister, your daughter, your mother, molested, incested, raped, beaten, and verbally abused until she is a shell of what she should be, reaching a precarious hold on sanity due to Jesus, called by Jesus in the end days ____________________, and then forbidden to speak by men, regardless of their calling by God.[/i]

This is where the men, if we were truly to call them by such the lofty title, the nobility of what it truly means to be a man at the core of being mets it's own repercussions and demands and ramifications. You are fully right and accurate in saying so and the little boys that have not yet grown up into their own manhood are at odds with [i]themselves[/i] in their own roles and their on usurping. It is the height of diabolical contradiction and utter evil to even [i]think[/i] of skirting their own character by way of denunciating what they are called to do as [i]men[/i]. Any ... little boy, they are not men, who would dare to take advantage, to thwart their responsibility, to demean, to commit these unspeakable acts as mentioned, to even think they have a leg to stand on ... Most of these are as atrocious on the surface as to need little approbation or explanation. Woe to them!

The verbal abuse is just as inexcusable as I would be assuming the placement here in the midst of the others. Meaning, this lording over, this selfish, un-sacrificing mode of character ... much of this has been addressed earlier ... did this get missed somehow? Whatever the case, [i]men[/i] have far more responsibility 'over' and that needs quantifying, the weaker sex. Not my words, scripture's. In a sense it is [i]under[/i] paradoxically. Under as in sacrificing, under as in [i]under authority[/i] .... Had saved this for the other topic on spiritual authority but perhaps here is as good a place as any;

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

[i]And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. [/i] Mat 8:5-13

The passage in Matthew. To look at this and recognize some things, the recognition itself is predominant. What was it that the centurion took note of? Was it not authority? "I am a man under authority..." He certainly new of this experientially and also note in the very same continuing sentence;

[i]having soldiers under me:
and I say to this man,
Go, and he goeth;
and to another, Come,
and he cometh;
and to my servant,
Do this, and he doeth it.[/i]

Hold up! Did he not first start this off by saying "[b]I am[/b] a man [u]under[/u] authority"? And then he goes on to explain those that are under [u]his[/u] authority? What? There is no boasting here, he starts off stating his own 'diminished' if you will subjection at the same time recognizing his responsibility of those under him. Is he not expressing a certain accountability by way of all this? Namely [i]his own[/i]? How different is all this from a 'lording over' or the great misconstruing we would have as [i]rebels[/i] against an authority of establishment and I speak here of substance not necessarily 'governance' per se, again [i]spiritual authority[/i]. Straight away the Lord's reaction;

[i]When Jesus heard it, he marvelled[/i]

Oh to ponder this!



There is authority that curiously tries too hard and diminishes that which is given. Spiritually, authority is something that has you, not you it. Take note of our Lord, His assertiveness? He forced us to face facts in the most ultimate way, at their source, inwardly. [i]Out of him, those are they that defile the man.[/i]

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

No sister, you are certainly correct about the abuse of this matter. There is certainly more venom of rebuke stored up for the likes of our 'kind' than has been yet put forth. There are too many cowards of courage and of straight speaking of sheer responsibility as men and quite a ways or rather a whole lot of deprogramming that men of this hour need to subject themselves to spiritually. Jeanette may have touched on this in part earlier, indeed there is much of this underneath all the verbiage ... still I think it true that [i]some[/i] of the ladies have ... [i]some[/i] of the time exceeded that which is proper, have alluded to what if scenarios that gave rise to a rebuttal here ... have at times gone out of bounds, out of order, out of sorts ... etc. etc. etc.

But the men, Oh we have some reckoning of our own to do, no question or doubt about it. We have responsibilities in protection and in true sacrificial love and I believe one of them is very much to step into matters like this one and make some hard comments.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/6/24 11:11Profile









 Re: Are Women Totally Forbidden to Teach?


Hi Mike,

I'm glad you are still chipping away at this and I do hope you bear with us all until you know you've reached the terminus, as it were.

I'm going to quote from your last post before commenting on the quote, although I could do it in the other order. I really don't know if it makes a whole lot of difference either way. But I suppose I want you to know you touched on something I could have said earlier, only I hadn't thought of mentioning it. The 'it' may be a surprise to you, but may also answer some of your own wonderings and explain (to you) some of the incredulity at your stance, which some of us (sisters (and Phillip, it seems)), have been attempting to contain in this thread.

Quote:
'do what men will not do'

Is dangerous and I believe an usurping, Who makes this determination? You? Me? Can you back it scripturally? And I mean that in the deepest sense. When women start determining and deciding pragmatically how, what and when things are to be done, judiciously taking it upon themselves are they not out of order, out of character, out of sorts with themselves as persons? Likewise, when the men turn about and do the very same thing, the same determining and deciding ... is it not fleshly, natural better, carnal, this reasoning? Men in womens roles, and women in the mans. This is largely the whole didactic and redundant point all along.

Speaking directly to your questions about 'who' decides, I'd say I have heard this point brought out in sermons, by preachers who were bringing it to the attention of a mixed (male and female) congregation of born again believers. Initially, they were quoting research into the balance of men and women on the mission field, the conclusion of which had been that women outnumbered men because they had said 'yes' when God had called them...

Now, I don't know who decided that God had called women because men wouldn't go, or if that was also part of the research, but this is not new news (or research). And the truth is that God [i]has[/i] called women, both to places where the existing missionary societies would not support them, or, to where there was [i]no[/i] missionary society. That isn't always in a foreign land, either.

While I am speaking as myself in this next point, I believe that all of us (sisters) have been through deep waters with the LORD and have not been overflowed. As a result, we are changed. And, I don't believe any of us would risk moving out onto a limb [i]without[/i] God - though how one defines 'out on a limb', is probably related to one's prior conditioning. How one lives there though, is by God's strength, not one's own.


The other thing your comment reminded me, is just how [i]many[/i] times I've heard it preached that the baptism of the Spirit includes women, bringing them into sonship of God, and the same spiritual blessing, including expectations of obedience to His will, calling and exercise of faith in our response; going on to explain what the New Testament says which means women are [i]not[/i] excluded from either receiving or using the spiritual gifts, and encouraging the participation of women when the saints are gathered together, in every way scripture allows.

In particular, I want to stress the link, which you have never alluded to, which makes this all work in practise; [i]faith[/i]. Without faith, there is no exercise of a spiritual gift. If one is speaking when one should not be, one knows it. Abjectly. If one is [i]not[/i] speaking when one [i]should[/i] be, [i][b]one knows that also![/i][/b] (When I say 'give the word in faith', I am not talking about preaching or teaching, but simply sharing or praying what one believes the Spirit would have one say.)

It is very much a learning procedure, to get in line with the finer tuning of hearing aright, speaking only what should be said, and then stopping. Immediately. Furthermore, in my experience, one needn't expect too much feedback. One has to give the word in faith, and faithfully, knowing it is the Lord who makes sense of these contributions in the hearts for whom they are intended - and that's enough. The whole thing takes a kind of humble courage.


On first reading what you said above here 'When women start determining and deciding pragmatically how, what and when things are to be done, judiciously taking it upon themselves are they not out of order, out of character, out of sorts with themselves as persons? Likewise, when the men ...' it struck me that you are not attributing to sisters (it seems) the actual knowledge of God by which they walk day by day in the Spirit. But this is the only way life [i]works[/i], in God - Church - meeting together.

You know.... one of the marks of a Spirit-led gathering of saints can be the [u]silences[/u]. It can take faith not to fill them with something. In the context of the conversation in this thread, I hope that is something you are delighted to hear.

The discipline of this way of hearing from the Lord is probably more, than to sit quietly in a pew, vocalising words chosen by another. I should qualify that comment by saying I KNOW that liturgy - choice of prayer, song and responses - can be used by the Lord opportunistically, if the person leading them knows Him. I've seen that work. But it's ... not very participatory... sigh.


In the light of this prior experience and knowing how God has used the liberty of others to bless [i]me[/i] in those types of gathering where there is an openness for the Lord to speak through one and another, I believe this is the way to go. But, I also realise if it has not been led by the Spirit, it IS a disaster for everyone. [b]The men absolutely must know the Lord[/b], or there is [u]no[/u] order (or one might call it [i]dis[/i]order).


It is this, I realised last night when I posed the question about 1 Cor 14:34, which I believe Paul is addressing. His use of the 'your', (in the context of the whole letter - which is addressed to 'all saints') and his reference to the law, held in the context of the preceding chapters about relationships, (esp 1 Cor 7), may imply that the wives in question were not born again. Paul could refer them to the law as their schoomaster, or perhaps they were law-less; so that the men were clear of their priorities with regard to such a time of fellowship in the Spirit with other believers.


Really, I don't know if any other sense can be made of asking 'your' women to keep silence, as it certainly cannot make sense to prohibit sisters from exercising their gifts. In fact, it is precisely because they are sisters, that they [i]should[/i] be given brotherly oversight [i]when[/i] they exercise their gifting.


I hope these thoughts help to bring a background to some earlier posts.



 2007/6/24 15:09
UniqueWebRev
Member



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

 Re: A Woman Speaking Under Authority

Quote:

crsschk wrote:
[i]But there is something to which doctrine points - He who is the truth, the reality, the ineffable, unspeakable and ultimate reality of God Himself. God forbid that we should fall short of that glory, of that reality, and of that truth because we are satisfied with the truths about the truth....Do not fall short of the glory. That entering is so dear to God, that He will not think it too extravagant to bring us to the place of intolerable suffering so we can experience and fully see the joy of the light of God. This is the fellowship of His suffering. The quest for truth is a suffering to those who have to proclaim it without themselves having a full comprehension of it, yet are unable to withhold the proclamation. [/i] ~ Art Katz

...It is not to further yet another wrong notion, just the compulsion to do so that I am finding so ... inexplicable. Why is this such a compelling to enter into all this, why the seemingly narrow focus to principle and first inception, the constant hammering away at it all?

Why keep coming back to it? There is a certain [i]reason[/i] for not addressing all the other things and it has to do with that narrowness to getting at something and practically ignoring while not again being indifferent to all the other things being spoken.

The usurping has more to do with all, everyone and it has this seeming development needed even in more development. The '[i]out of order[/i] aspect no different....



Alas, no. I would that everything were as it was when Paul was on the planet. Yes, really, even the slave status of a women, and the disregard of her except as some man's mother. As a woman, one only had to cope with the ill humor of one's husband, and not the entire tribe, when God says, "Woman!" For if one's husband said, "NO!", the curse was upon him, for not allowing the obedience of his woman to their God.

Because the responsibility is terrifying, to me at least.


Quote:
To apply that here, could not but draw the similarities and the ab-junction towards wondering if the matter of [i]out of order[/i] isn't superseded by [i]out of character[/i]. That, [i]that[/i] is the issue and marrow at hand here. That spiritually 'we' are in 'rebellion' because we are acting out of character and therefore 'out of order'. And yes, it is dependent on many other factors, those things that seem to be driving a few here nut's that there has been so little given to ... recognition of it all.



Alas, again, no. For all that we are speaking, we few women here on SI that are so doggedly disputing what is not being seen or heard by the men here on SI, it is because God has said, "Woman!"

You have no idea how much easier it is to rely on one's feminity, sit at home, and sew a fine seam. Because, when the man is not at home, we read the Word, and pray to God, and hear Him speak. And we hang back, those of us that are wise, and wait, until circumstances demand, and God makes it impossible for us to stay at home any longer.


Quote:
I have been somewhat 'jacked up' about all this for I don't know how long now and it is still a peculiar thing as to [i]why[/i] exactly. I appeal again to the out take of the out take above. It's observation and ... questioning ... over mandate and 'statement'. Theres room, always room for adjustment. But am not about to start reversing these things to codify or pacify even my own chagrin or at times 'deciding' that I am all but finished with it and will return no more. Have had to even give that up and plod along despite it all ... Is this all too much here? Seriously, I sense a bit of hyperbole in some of it, but the compelling to [i]get some place[/i] ...




Yes. You seek to hear, and look to seek, among words written in scripture, when order still was, and there was no breaking down of who had to do what.

Men always knew that somehow, when they went off to battle to fight and possibly die, that we women would somehow cope.

Then, if they returned, they found all changed, and sought to force it back into the old mold. And woman sighed a little sigh of relief, despite having seen the freedom that one can have, that they no longer had to do it all.

For being alone is so very hard, and to have to depend only on yourself, when you were not created to do so, is so incredibly difficult that you will take the return of the man and the return of the abuse of his responsibility, just to not have to bear the responsibility oneself.


Quote:
Had to come back however and address, leave off the particular line and bent and veer off where it seems I was not ready for yet an anticipation of getting around to it certainly. The compulsion to have some kind of true, real, definitions as much as they are possible to this whole ruckus 'controversy'. This;

Quote:
THINK! Your wife, your sister, your daughter, your mother, molested, incested, raped, beaten, and verbally abused until she is a shell of what she should be, reaching a precarious hold on sanity due to Jesus, called by Jesus in the end days to do what men will not do, and then forbidden to speak by men, regardless of their calling by God.

Please, re-read all four sermons from this viewpoint.



Though earlier I seemingly dismissed this and it does still seem to be yet out in front ... It is both misnomer and yet fact. Some of it. Again, this;
Quote:
do what men will not do

Is dangerous and I believe an usurping, [i]Who[/i] makes this determination? You? Me? Can you back it scripturally?



Yes. There is no room here, but I will say, "the history in the whole of the Bible," when women have been called by God to do what is needed. Deborah. Jael. Esther. Mary. For without them, there would be no now to dispute about. And if God did not call us, we would not bother to fight to do as we are told.

Because the responsibility is terrifying, and we would much rather be left alone, thank you very much.

Because it is so much easier.


Quote:
And I mean that in the deepest sense. When women start determining and deciding pragmatically how, what and when things are to be done, judiciously taking it upon themselves are they not [i]out of order[/i], out of [i]character[/i], out of [i]sorts[/i] with themselves as [u]persons[/u]?



No. Not if God has said, "Woman!", first. Which is the whole point of this incredible thread.

None of the women that have spoken on this thread has disputed the rights and responsibilities of men in the church.

And that is why we think you are not listening.

One of us women here at SI has been a pastor, and been called from it.

Another has become a speaker, because she is called to it.

I have become a writer because I am called to it.

By God.


Quote:
Likewise, when the men turn about and do the very same thing, the same determining and deciding ... is it not fleshly, natural better, [i]carnal[/i], this reasoning? Men in womens roles, and women in the mans. This is largely the whole didactic and redundant point all along.

It is still not everything and does not quite explain everything either. There is all the difference in 'tasks' and practical matters that are not so easily squared away. 'Teaching' is something that this whole topic was first brought to bear upon and it has extrapolated into all the tentacles of where and when and in right functionality and I don't know that there has been a particular point of addressing it yet, personally that is. Still in the observation mode if you will of first principles and ... the rest is quite redundant indeed.

To turn away from it all momentarily ... pardon the exuberance here, I don't understand it even fully! Besides myself and still somehow, mostly, calm, what a paradox!

Leaving out the disputing part ...

[i]THINK! Your wife, your sister, your daughter, your mother, molested, incested, raped, beaten, and verbally abused until she is a shell of what she should be, reaching a precarious hold on sanity due to Jesus, called by Jesus in the end days ____________________, and then forbidden to speak by men, regardless of their calling by God.[/i]

This is where the men, if we were truly to call them by such the lofty title, the nobility of what it truly means to be a man at the core of being mets it's own repercussions and demands and ramifications. You are fully right and accurate in saying so and the little boys that have not yet grown up into their own manhood are at odds with [i]themselves[/i] in their own roles and their on usurping. It is the height of diabolical contradiction and utter evil to even [i]think[/i] of skirting their own character by way of denunciating what they are called to do as [i]men[/i]. Any ... little boy, they are not men, who would dare to take advantage, to thwart their responsibility, to demean, to commit these unspeakable acts as mentioned, to even think they have a leg to stand on ... Most of these are as atrocious on the surface as to need little approbation or explanation. Woe to them!



Thank you, but that is now irrelevant to those of us that have survived it all.

Men may be called, and teach and pastor, and women like us will be unconcerned.

We will put up with the little boys that try to be men, and be silent in the churches, unless God has said "Woman!"


Quote:
The verbal abuse is just as inexcusable as I would be assuming the placement here in the midst of the others. Meaning, this lording over, this selfish, un-sacrificing mode of character ... much of this has been addressed earlier ... did this get missed somehow? Whatever the case, [i]men[/i] have far more responsibility 'over' and that needs quantifying, the weaker sex. Not my words, scripture's. In a sense it is [i]under[/i] paradoxically. Under as in sacrificing, under as in [i]under authority[/i]



None of us are in dispute with any man over what has been said in the Bible.

We acknowledge your rights.

We also acknowledge your responsibilities.

And if you do not take care of them, under Authority, you will be relieved of duty, and another called to take your place.


Quote:
.... Had saved this for the other topic on spiritual authority but perhaps here is as good a place as any;

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

[i]And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. [/i] Mat 8:5-13

The passage in Matthew. To look at this and recognize some things, the recognition itself is predominant. What was it that the centurion took note of? Was it not authority? "I am a man under authority..." He certainly new of this experientially and also note in the very same continuing sentence;

[i]having soldiers under me:
and I say to this man,
Go, and he goeth;
and to another, Come,
and he cometh;
and to my servant,
Do this, and he doeth it.[/i]

Hold up! Did he not first start this off by saying "[b]I am[/b] a man [u]under[/u] authority"? And then he goes on to explain those that are under [u]his[/u] authority? What? There is no boasting here, he starts off stating his own 'diminished' if you will subjection at the same time recognizing his responsibility of those under him. Is he not expressing a certain accountability by way of all this? Namely [i]his own[/i]? How different is all this from a 'lording over' or the great misconstruing we would have as [i]rebels[/i] against an authority of establishment and I speak here of substance not necessarily 'governance' per se, again [i]spiritual authority[/i]. Straight away the Lord's reaction;

[i]When Jesus heard it, he marvelled[/i]

Oh to ponder this!



There is authority that curiously tries too hard and diminishes that which is given. Spiritually, authority is something that has you, not you it. Take note of our Lord, His assertiveness? He forced us to face facts in the most ultimate way, at their source, inwardly. [i]Out of him, those are they that defile the man.[/i]

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



We do not dispute the authority that is granted.

Why should we? We are standing on that authority too.


Quote:
No sister, you are certainly correct about the abuse of this matter. There is certainly more venom of rebuke stored up for the likes of our 'kind' than has been yet put forth. There are too many cowards of courage and of straight speaking of sheer responsibility as men and quite a ways or rather a whole lot of deprogramming that men of this hour need to subject themselves to spiritually. Jeanette may have touched on this in part earlier, indeed there is much of this underneath all the verbiage ... still I think it true that [i]some[/i] of the ladies have ... [i]some[/i] of the time exceeded that which is proper, have alluded to what if scenarios that gave rise to a rebuttal here ... have at times gone out of bounds, out of order, out of sorts ... etc. etc. etc.



Jeanette proposed the example, twice, then I answered it. But it is only after God has said, "Woman!" For both of us have heard Him speak.


Quote:
But the men, Oh we have some reckoning of our own to do, no question or doubt about it. We have responsibilities in protection and in true sacrificial love and I believe one of them is very much to step into matters like this one and make some hard comments.



But if the man has gone away forever, and the world has changed beyond comprehension, and God says, "Woman!", one has no choice.

I doubt that I have been more outraged in this thread than in most of my life, until I saw that you did not see, we women were saying, After God has spoken, and said "Woman", what are we to do?


[i]THINK! Your wife, your sister, your daughter, your mother,________reaching a precarious hold on sanity due to Jesus, called by Jesus in the end days__________, and then forbidden to speak by men, regardless of their calling by God.[/i]

We are not disputing the line of authority.

In fact, we are doing our best not to tread on anyone's toes, nor exceed by one hair's breadth the calling that God has placed on us, by saying, "Woman!"

All we are asking is the recognition that God has called us, and we want to discuss what we are to do, based upon scriptural warrant, and the entire history of 'Women being called by God' to some authority.

Along this thread, my heading changed to A Woman Speaking Under Authority. You obviously thought it of no account.

I see that now.

Outside the bounds of a public assembly in a church building, scripture allows me to teach and to write, to preach and to evangelize, under Christ's authority alone, for I have no husband.

If you insist that I still have one, he is somewhere else, with another woman, having abdicated his position, and deserved death under the Law that Paul speaks of.

Either way, Christ is now my Head, and my Authority, and He has had to go to the point of physically assailing me to get me to take up a responsibility I don't particularly want.

But you are not hearing me.


Blessings,

Forrest


_________________
Forrest Anderson

 2007/6/24 18:55Profile
murdog
Member



Joined: 2006/2/4
Posts: 352
Fort Frances, Ontario

 Re:

Members,

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

2 Timothy 4:2-4

"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

2 Timothy 3:7

Murray


_________________
Murray Beninger

 2007/6/25 12:04Profile





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