Women

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Sorry Cordell, but the title of the other thread was getting kind of on my nerves, so I thought we needed a new one, with a less provocative title.

You mentioned the law again...
Well, the way I see it, the 10 c's are the base for the OT law and the rest is commentary on it. E.g. the commandment about the Sabbath is explained later in detail, as is how we should honor our parents, or what is consider murder and what is killing etc. In the NT, Jesus gave us only one commandment: we should love each other as He loved us, and the rest of the NT is commentary on how it should be done. For instance, the one who used to steal, should stop doing so and instead work so he could give to the ones who are in need (active love that reaches out). That some of the "practical advice" on how we should love each other are similar to those in the OT doesn't mean that the OT is still valid; it means that they are similar because they were given by the same person. I like Dr. Fruchtenbaum's way to explain it: if you usually drive in California (I use different states than he did in his text) and you come to Oregon, you will get a ticket if you turn to the lane that is not next to you, since Oregon law forbids it. This is not true in California, so when you return, you can chnage lanes as you please without getting in trouble. But you have to stop at every red light in both states, and you cannot stop in the middle of an intersection in either. Does this mean that Ca traffic laws are valid in Or just because they are similar? Of course not. The goverment is different, therefore the laws are different. Similarity doesn't mean sameness. In the same way, God the Father was the head in the OT, Jesus is the head in the NT. The OT saints followed to law given by the Father, we follow the law given by the Son. There are a lot of similarites, but to say that we are under the OT law is simply not true. You would have to overlook a whole lot of NT passages to derive to such a conclusion. But since the subject is the usage of the word "law" in 1 Cor 14:34, let's give the issue a new twist...
Some scholars say the following passage is actually a quote from the letter that the Corinthians sent to Paul (1 Cor 7:1):
1 Cor 14:34-35
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

The reason they have come to this conclusion lies in the original text and the usage of a letter. It looks like a n with a "tail" on the right side, making the right side longer than the left side. Greeks didn't have quotationmarks, instead they added this letter to the end of a sentence to show that it was in fact a quotation. I checked my Greek Bible, and there it was. I was curious if I was able to find it elsewhere and I did: Titus 1:12b is a quote, and this letter is found at the end. I discussed this issue with a friend of mine who has studied linguistics and she said that she has come across such a usage in her studies.
If these two verses are in fact a quote from the letter the Corinthians sent to Paul, then the following verses make a whole lot of sense:
1 Cor 14:36-37
Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

The Corinthians were saying that women shouldn't speak in the church, while Paul was telling them that it was (in 1 Cor 11) and he asks them if the word of God came to them originally. The word for law would in this case refer to the Jewish talmud (considered to be as authoritative as the Torah) which says that it is shameful for a woman to speak in the synagogue. The Jews allowed servants and even children to speak in the meetings, but not women.

Now, before you all get exited and begin to tell me that this is impossible and false, let's spend some time investigating this, shall we?

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">Sorry Cordell, but the title of the other thread was getting kind of on my nerves, so I thought we needed a new one, with a less provocative title.</font>

Yeah, this one looks like the entrance to a restroom.

I have answered you on the "NAME" thread, in detail. Have fun! Merry Christmas!

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Ok, let's talk about leadership. Let us for a moment assume that the man was given the "headship" in the family, church and society. To properly understand the meaning of "headship", let's examine the headship of Jesus. He is the absolute ruler of the church and the world and has the right to command and expect obedience. What did Jesus do when He came to the world? He became poor, lowly, humble and washed people's feet. I.e. he became a slave, a servant and gave the model of servant leadership. The one who wants to be great is told to be a slave, since a disciple isn't greater than the master. Most gets that part right, but there is another aspect that most ignore or aren't aware of: as a ruler, in the Kingdom Age, Jesus invites us to rule with Him.
Rev 2:26-27
26 And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations--
27'He shall rule them with a rod of iron;
They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter's vessels'-as I also have received from My Father;

Instead of considering us as only His servants, He invited us to sit with Him in the heavenly places. This is the model that Eph 5:21-33 tells us to follow. The man as the head should invite his wife to come and rule with him, therefore the wife is also called the head of the household.

[hodeuon (hodeuon)]

Susanna,

Could you please direct me to your source for how eta (n with a tail) was used for quotation marks? I would like to look into this in more detail.

Thank you,
Hodeuon at yahoo dot com

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

You know, I was kind of hoping that some of you would be able to help me! I found the idea in the book "10 lies the cburch tells women" by Lee Grady. I want to examine this issue more, so I am going to the library next week to study Greek Grammar. So maybe next wekk?

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Paul was quoting...

1:12 One of them, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always
liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."

1. Paul quoted a line from a poem by Epimenides, a poet and
philosopher who lived in Crete 600 years earlier.
a. Paul called him a prophet because other ancient writers
(Aristotle) did so, and because his own countrymen gave him
that title.
b. The quotation reveals the basic charter flaws of the Cretans.
2. "Always liars" - habitual liars.
a. The reputation of the Cretans was so bad that the verb form
of their name (kretizo) was use by the Greeks to indicated
lying.
3. "Evil beasts" - "vicious brutes" NIV; a sensual, animal nature; no
effects to curb any selfish, sensual desire.
a. Also, indicates a savage and cruel nature; destroy others to
gain an advantage for themselves.
4. "Lazy Gluttons" - "idle gluttons" ASV
a. Gluttony - excessive in eating or drinking.
b. They were lazy and given to gluttony.


I don't have access to my Greek grammars today (I am confined to bed) but I do recall reading that some texts use the eta as a breathing mark/quote marker.

Will do more looking when I have access to my books.

[cordell (cordell)]

Susanna:<font color="0000ff">Ok, let's talk about leadership. Let us for a moment assume that the man was given the "headship" in the family, church and society. To properly understand the meaning of "headship", let's examine the headship of Jesus. He is the absolute ruler of the church and the world and has the right to command and expect obedience. What did Jesus do when He came to the world? He became poor, lowly, humble and washed people's feet. I.e. he became a slave, a servant and gave the model of servant leadership. The one who wants to be great is told to be a slave, since a disciple isn't greater than the master. Most gets that part right, but there is another aspect that most ignore or aren't aware of: as a ruler, in the Kingdom Age, Jesus invites us to rule with Him.
Rev 2:26-27
26 And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations--
27'He shall rule them with a rod of iron;
They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter's vessels'-as I also have received from My Father;

Instead of considering us as only His servants, He invited us to sit with Him in the heavenly places. This is the model that Eph 5:21-33 tells us to follow. The man as the head should invite his wife to come and rule with him, therefore the wife is also called the head of the household.</font>

I have no problem with most of what you say here and it begins to make me wonder what the hell this discussion is about or where it is going. My only point is this--no 'body' has two heads. Not the church or the home.

As Christians we share in Christ's anointing--we are all--male and female--prophets, priests and kings but we are not equal to Christ. We are inferior in rank to him.

Wives are equal spiritually in access to Christ and in righteousness and in value. But they are not equal in rank or in position in the church or in the home.

If we now devolve into a "yes it is, no it isn't" scenario we are at an impasse. If so, ok. I have made my view plain and am unconvinced by any argument presented thus far that claims that the Bible teaches that men and women may serve in equal offices in either the church or the home. I remain open to persuasion by the Scriptures but haven't seen anything so far to convince me otherwise.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

You are rigth, no one can have two heads. This is also true of the woman. How can she have two heads, the husband and Jesus? As a member of the Body of Christ, she has Jesus as her head. Marriage is a part of the Body of Christ, so how can she have her husband as a head as well, if she is already under the headship of Jesus?

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

I think that one thought causes most of the problems here: the man and Jesus are compared with each other as "equals". While it is true that Jesus has absolute authority over the church and the world, the man doesn't. The idea that the man is for the woman what God is for makind is what causes us to think that man has authority over the woman. But this is simply not true. Men and women are under the authority of Jesus equally. The idea that there has to be a leader in every team is a cute explanation why the man has authority over the woman, but it doesn't find validity in the Bible. That the man is compared to Jesus and the woman is compared to the Body gives us an allegory which explains how the mutual submission should be put into practice. Nowhere does the Bible say that the man is to the woman what God is to mankind. This is a false statement, based on Eph 5 and 1 Cor 11, which disregards everything else the Bible says, such as:
Matt 23:8-13
"But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

I.e. no distinctions should be allowed in the Body of Christ since we are all brothers and sisters.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Brava.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

It seems that people who support the view that women are supposed to be submissive uses mostly the verse "woman was created for the man". Let me ask you, is the Holy Spirit supposed to submit to us since He was sent to us to be our Helper, Comforter and Advocate? Since God sent Him to us, does that automatically make Him our servant?

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

What I like is that Eve was deceived, but Adam chose to sin. Can someone tell me how that makes Adam better or more qualified? It seems to me that his sin was more deliberate than hers and therefore worse.

[whatsup (whatsup)]

But the woman being taken from man and presented to him happened before the sin...God did not give man leadership based on whose sin was worse.
Susanna, the Holy Spirit is God and woman is not. Big difference. Perhaps the trinity should be your next "study". If there was ever a case to be made for women keeping silent, you would be more convincing than any bible verse

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
whatsup,
The woman was taken from Adam's rib as a part of him to represent the oneness that should be between a man and wife.

God's statement of man ruling over woman (her desire for him) was after the fall and a direct result of the disobedeience of eating the fruit.

The Holy Spirit is God and man is not as well as woman.You left man out of the "who is not God" picture which could confuse people as to what you mean by that.
Susanna didn't imply that woman was God at all.
I am wondering how you came to that assumption as it seems that is what you are implying.
---
"If there was ever a case to be made for women keeping silent, you would be more convincing than any bible verse."
---
I fail to see the validity of this statement.Perhaps it would be beneficial for you to study Genesis a little more.
(who couldn't benefit from that?)

Susanna is doing quite well with what she is sharing.Why insinuate that she would better serve in silence?
Is there some danger in being challenged?
(just asking)

Your statement of "woman is not God" really throws me off.I don't see it being presented in anything Susanna has posted to date.
Could you clarify what you mean please?

with humility,
Dave

</font>}

[whatsup (whatsup)]

Dave,
I was referring to Susanna's post last night at 11:54 comparing women to the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is God. Women are not. It is like comparing apples to oranges. I hope this clarifies it for you. Of course it goes without saying that men are not God either, but the post was about women and the Holy Spirit.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
whatsup,
thank you for your gracious reply.
I seem to see her post in a differant light which should help you see why I asked this.

It seemed to me that she was contexting her post to make an illistration of what she was stating.
As follows;
is the Holy Spirit supposed to submit to us since He was sent to us to be our Helper, Comforter and Advocate? Since God sent Him to us, does that automatically make Him our servant?

Since it is the Holy Spirit that "helps" us,could it be said that He is under our headship?
That is,following the reasoning that "helper" as in the woman being a help to the man,means subordinate and in subjection to or under authority?

I think her point is valid in that context.

Dave

</font>}

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Thanks Dave, you got it!

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Bob, I was going to mention that today, and I think you are right about it being bizarre. I have to go to town now, but I have a verse for all of you to contemplate on today:

Num 15:27-31
'And if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. 28 So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the LORD, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. 29 You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who sojourns among them.

30'But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.' "

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

EXCUSE ME FOR BEING THE CAVEMAN IN THE GROUP, BUT WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT EVE TOLD ADAM WHERE SHE GOT THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF FRUIT HE ATE? MAYBE HE WAS JUST A DUMB HUNGRY SLOB WHO CAME IN FROM A HARD DAY AT NAMING ANIMALS, SAID "HEY WOMAN, WHAT'S TO EAT?" THEN SHEN THROWS HIM A HUNK OF FRUIT FROM ACCROSS THE ROOM, HE'S NOT PAYING ANY ATTENTION, HE'S WATCHING THE FOOTBALL GAME, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN HE'S LIKE " WHAT THE......SNIKE?" I DON'T READ ANYTHING THAT WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON. YOU KNOW HOW US GUYS ARE. "GIMME FOOD, ME HUNGRY" I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES MY LOVELY LITTLE EVE HAS GIVEN ME SOMETHING TO EAT, THAT I DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A SECOND THOUGHT ABOUT BEFORE I SCARFED IT DOWN. how you like me now?
in all the CHRISTMAS CHEER A CAVEMAN COULD MUSTER
LOVE GTP

BY THE WAY, ADAM WAS JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE WHO DIDN'T WEAR THE PANTS IN THE FAMILY. THAT'S WHAT GOT US INTO ALL THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. EQUAL RIGHTS. LOL,LOL,LOL,http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

(Message edited by Gone to PA on December 24, 2005)

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Tom, I am not upset with you. I just want you to consider sometimes what it is you are posting, that's all.

Now, to you interesting view of Eden:

The Bible says in Gen 3:6 that Adam was next to Eve (with her) and therefore he knew where the fruit came from. If you read the text you will notice that Adam and Eve had to be next to the tree, since the Bible doesn't say that Eve went to the tree, took the fruit and returned to the Serpent and Adam. It says that Eve looked at the tree and saw that it was good for food, etc. she took the fruit and ate. Now my next question is: what were they doing so close to the tree in the first place? Why were they subjecting themselves to such a temptation since God had forbidden them from eating of the tree? If it wasn't curiosity, then what was it? If you notice, Satan was right there, by the tree, ready to lie and decieve. Had the couple never gone to the tree in the first place, they would never have listened to the Serpent. This leads to the next issue: did Eve drag Adam there, or did they go there together? Since there was no sin in the world, there is no reason for us to believe that Eve would have decieved Adam into eating from the tree, since she didn't even know what deception was. She learned it first after she had eaten from the tree. Some "scholars" have concluded that Adam was completely innocent in the affair and the whole guilt lies on Eve since she took the fruit first. But there is a problem with this view: Rom 5. Adam is charged with sin, transgression and offense. Why would God hold Adam guilty of these, if he was completely innocent? Does God punish the innocent?

The headship of the man is also something we read into the Bible, which gives us the picture that "Adam didn't wear the pants in the family". Gen 3 gives us rather a picture of a couple who works in unity and harmony under the headship of the Father; neither is acting independently from each other, since they were both found by the tree together. We don't see Adam teaching Eve, but we do see God teaching Adam and Eve (if that can be deducted out of God seeking to converse with them). We have placed so much emphasis on the fact that Eve took the fruit first that we have missed something important: Eve was deceived, Adam wasn't, which is why Adam is held responsible. He sinned wilfully which is according to the Bible a greater offense than that of sinning out of ignorance. (Num 15:27-31)

Rom 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

So, why is it that women cannot teach because Eve was deceived? And what makes men more qualified, since Adam sinned wilfully. I would like to know your opinion on the matter, if you would indulge me.

Next issue is that of the order of creation. I have heard many times that because Adam was created first, he was superior to the woman who was created out of him and for him, who is created to be his subject since she was created second. Let's examine the creation of the man and use the same logic:

God created the earth on day three which also included the dust of which the first man was formed.
Gen 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

It is clear from the text that the man was created from the dust of the earth, which was created three days prior to the creation of man. The reason the man was created was to cultivate the land:

Gen 2:5
before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;

Gen 2:15
Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.

So, the man was created to take care of the earth from which he was formed.

Does this mean that the man was called to live in submission to the earth since he was created OF the earth and FOR the earth?

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Genesis 1:26

26'God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth.'

It doesn't say here that Adam had authority over Eve. It says 'them'.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Consider also this verse from I Corinthians 15.

21 'For since [it was] through a man that death [came into the world, it is] also through a Man that the resurrection of the dead [has come].'

So seemingly Adam is blamed for bringing sin into the world rather than Eve.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Although it's been said many times, many ways...

Merry Christmas!

[dinaweena (dinaweena)]

True Worship happens when we bow at the foot of the cross, reeling to comprehend how a holy God would chase us down with kindness and redeem us from an eternity of futile gods. Our sense of worship increases beyond church walls and the Sunday routine, and all life becomes our delighted response to God.

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

I'M NOT READING GEN 3:6 LIKE THAT, SHE WAS DECEIVED, TOOK THE FRUIT ATE AND GAVE SOME TO HER HUSBAND. DIDN'T SAY HE WAS IN THE SAME ROOM, DID IT? I'M NOT TRYING TO BE A KNUCKLEHEAD, JUST NOT TRYING TO READ INTO THE TEXT WHAT I WANT TO HEAR. ALSO JOHN SIN DID ENTER THE WORLD THROUGH ADAM, BECAUSE HE WAS THE HEAD AND RESPONSIBLE, BUT SINCE IT'S CHRISTMAS, I'D LIKE TO MENTION THE MAN WHO BROUGHT RESSURECTION INTO THE WORLD SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO TASTE DEATH. HIS NAME IS JESUS, THE SWEETEST NAME I KNOW!!

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

(Message edited by Gone to PA on December 24, 2005)

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Okay. I'm having fun. Genesis 3. Verses 11-12:

11'And He said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?

*** 12 And the man said, The woman whom You gave to be with me--she gave me [fruit] from the tree, and I ate.'

Apparently in verse 12, Adam was aware that he had eaten fruit from the wrong tree. Further on in verse 16:

16'To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.'

Have you considered that the rule mentioned here is not one decreed by God, but rather a consequence of sin? That men rule over women wrongly? Do we think that the thorns and thistles which the ground brings forth are because the ground is so obedient to God, or that they are a consequence of sin? Is the soil good because it brings forth weeds?

And why did Paul say that in Christ there is no male and female?

Galatians 3:26 'For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.

*** 27For as many [of you] as were baptized into Christ [into a spiritual union and communion with Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah] have put on (clothed yourselves with) Christ.

*** 28There is [now no distinction] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.'

[dinaweena (dinaweena)]

Sanctification

Oswald Chambers

“Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us…sanctification.” 1 Cor i. 30.

The Life Side. The mystery of sanctification is that the perfections of Jesus Christ are imparted to me, not gradually, but instantly when by faith I enter into the realization that Jesus Christ is made unto me sanctification. Sanctification does not mean anything less than the holiness of Jesus being made mine manifestly.

The one marvelous secret of a holy life lies not in imitating Jesus, but in letting the perfections of Jesus manifest themselves in my mortal flesh. Sanctification is “Christ in you.” It is His wonderful life that is imparted to me in sanctification, and imparted by faith as a sovereign gift of God’s grace. Am I willing for God to make sanctification as real in me as it is in His word?

Sanctification means the impartation of the Holy qualities of Jesus Christ. It is His patience, His love, His holiness, His faith, His purity, His godliness, that is manifested in and through every sanctified soul. Sanctification is not drawing from Jesus the power to be holy; it is drawing from Jesus the holiness that was manifested in Him, and He manifests it in me. Sanctification is an impartation, not an imitation. Imitation is on a different line. In Jesus Christ is the perfection of everything, and the mystery of sanctification is that all the perfections of Jesus are at my disposal, and slowly an surely I begin to live a life of ineffable order and sanity and holiness: “Kept by the power of God.”

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, July 23rd.

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

Bob,
I am now studying some things that would agree with your point. I must seek this out on my own because of my limited knowledge on the subject. Thank you. I try and get back soon enought to let you know what I found. GTP

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

Eph 2:15 " for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; which explains what is meant before by making both one; and expresses the strictness of the union between Jew and Gentile, they became as one man; and points at the manner in which they became so strictly united; and that is by being made new men, or new creatures, by having a work of grace upon their souls, and so baptized into one body, and made to drink of one and the same Spirit; the foundation of which union is in himself; for Jew and Gentile, male and female, bond and free, are all one in Christ Jesus; he is the cornerstone in which they all meet, and the head to which the whole body is.

I love to learn. Let's me know I'm alive and teachible. Still studying, but starting to see the flip side of the coin.

goin to bed in PA

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

I hope everyone had a blessed Christmas.

IMO a number of Bob's points are explained by the redemption in Christ. Whether "he shall rule over you" is punitive or corrective, we sense a disordered relationship between husband and wife. In the NT, submission in general is "for the Lord's sake" (1 Peter 2:13), and wives are to submit to their husbands as is fitting "in the Lord" (Colossians 3:18). In Eph 5 the husband loves his wife sacrificially, and she submits "as to the Lord", all patterned after Christ and the church. This seems to picture a fallen relationship that has been restored.

Adam's leadership which existed before the fall was never revoked, even though his sin was greater than Eve's. In Christian marriages and churches, God's original creative intention can be realized.

Gal 3:28 can't mean that every distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and master (employee and supervisor today), male and female is eliminated. An employee and his boss can worship together on Sunday, but on Monday they still have distinct functions. A police officer is saved by grace through faith like everyone else, but is still a civil authority.

The NT places controls on relationships where there is risk of abuse: church elders, employers, parents, husbands. Authority is regulated, but not eliminated. IMO, the beauty is that in spite of differences in language, heritage, function and position, the blessings in Christ are the same. Faith, grace, baptism, being children and heirs of God - all are mentioned here; elimination of differences in culture and position is not. People of different education, wealth, background, nationality, gender and job status stand as equals before the Cross.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

I don't see any indication in Genesis 2 that Adam considered Eve to be under his authority, or that God did. They were to rule jointly. There was no problem with that until sin entered the picture.

If the woman is to submit as unto the Lord, then if her husband is not submitted unto the Lord, she cannot rightly sumit to him; at least in those areas where he is in opposition to Christ.

On another tack, what do you do with Deborah, placed by God in the same role as Samuel, judge and prophet, over all the people? She also was married. I'm relatively certain that her husband did not rule the people through her. The people came to her for spiritual counsel.

I'm not opposed to people having spiritual authority, but I don't think either gender or age or length of their days as a believer qualifies them. God picks who He will. There can be a spiritual authority in a given church greater than that which the pastor of said church holds. There are companies you could deal with in which you'd get a straight answer from a subordinate and a crooked one from their 'superior'. What's more important to you, truth or position?

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

I HAVE FEARED ASKING THIS, BUT WHAT DOES "IMO" STAND FOR? MY FINDINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS....
GAL 3:28 BELIEVERS ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS. SINCE ALL BELIEVERS BECAME ONE WITH EACH OTHER, HUMAN DISTINCTIONS LOSE THERE SIGNIFICANCE. NONE IS "SPIRITUALLY SUPERIOR" OVER ANOTHER, THAT IS , A BELIEVING JEW, IS NOT MORE PRIVLEDGED BEFORE GOD THEN A BELIEVING GENTILE ( Greek, in contrast to Jew, suggests all Gentiles; cf.Col 3:11); A BELIEVING SLAVE DOES NOT RANK HIGHER THAN A BELIEVING FREE PERSON; A BELIEVING MAN IS NOT SUPERIOR TO A BELIEVING WOMAN. SOME JEWISH MEN PRAYED, " I THANK GOD THAT THOU HAST NOT MADE ME A GENTILE, A SLAVE, OR A WOMAN." PAUL CUT ACCROSS THESE DISTINCTIONS AND STATED THAT THEY DO NOT EXIST IN THE BODY OF CHRIST SO FAR AS SPIRITUAL PRIVLEDGE AND POSITION ARE CONCERNED. ELSEWHERE, WHILE AFFIRMING THE CO-EQUALITY OF MAN AND WOMAN IN CHRIST, PAUL DID NONETHELESS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS A HEADSHIP OF MAN OVER THE WOMAN ( cf. 1 Cor 11:3)
AND THAT THERE ARE DISTINCTIONS IN THE AREA OF SPIRITUAL SERVICE. ( cf.1 Tim 2:12).
ref: walvoord &amp; zuck/zodiates N.T. word study and dictionary.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

IMO: In My Opinion (took me awhile to understand that one too!)

Bob, thanks for your comments. It is nice to haev a man here also who shares the same views most os women do. It gives the whole idea more credibility.

Tom, the word for head can also be translated "source". try to read 1 Cor 11 and Eph 5 this way and see if it makes more sense or less.
Also, if there is absolute equality in the Body of Christ, and we are all under the headship of Jesus, how can the wife have an additional head in marriage, which is part of the Body of Christ. Should we consider marriage to be outside of the Body? So, while the husband and wife are at church Sunday morning, they are equal and both under the headship of Jesus, but when they return home, they cease to be equal in all aspects? Doesn't Jesus rule also in a Christian home? Is is possible for a wife to have two "heads"? Does the husband cease to be the head while in church and become the head again when the couple is home?
Anybody?

I read a very interesting comment about 1 Tim 2 a couple of days ago. Ephesus was infested with a heresy, a form of gnostisism, which said that it was Adam who was decieved, not Eve. Instead she was "enlightened" and brought spiritual liberation to the world when she listened to the Serpent. They also said that Eve was a "goddess mother", and the source of all life, including Adam. This group mixed Christianity with the worship of Artemis (Diana) and women were very prominent in spreading this particular heresy. What Paul is doing in 1 Tim 2, which is a letter to the church in Ephesus, where the temple of Artemis was situated, is refuting this particular heresy. This is seen very clearly in the following:
1. Women shouldn't teach in Ephesus, since they were prominent at spreading the heresy.
2. Eve was created from Adam, instead of being the source of all life
3. Eve was decieved, not enlightened, and her deception brougt sin, not bliss, into the world.

See how easy it is to explain the Bible when we take a look at history and the context.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Bob, on another thread I listed 15 or so clues from Genesis 2 and 3 that IMO http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif indicate a leadership role for Adam. The pre-fall indicators are:

Woman made after the man, for the man, from the man, presented to the man, and named by the man. The word for man includes the human race. Adam started work before Eve arrived. He received God's instructions. He named all the animals. The man has the primary explicit responsibility in starting a new family.

The events of the fall point to a leadership role for Adam which predated the fall:

Ultimate responsibility is placed on Adam: "Sin entered the world through one man". After the fall, God "called the man" for an accounting. God begins his indictment against Adam with "Because you listened to your wife...", implying a failure in leadership. No corresponding indictment is pronounced against Eve. The indictment against Adam contains the phrase "I commanded you" which again seems to place special responsibility on him in leading his family. Again, this is not repeated to Eve. God's sentence of universal death "to dust you will return" was spoken to Adam, but includes men and women.

God had the option of doing creation this way:

Woman and man created at the same time, for each other, from the same substance, presented to each other, and named by God or by each other. The word "humanity" used to include the human race. Adam and Eve starting work together, receiving God's instructions together, naming the the animals together. Man and woman being given equal responsibility in starting a new family.

Ultimate responsibility for the fall could have been placed jointly on Adam and Eve: "Sin entered the world through one couple". After the fall, God could have called them both for an accounting. God could have indicted both Adam and Eve, and pronounced the death sentence to both of them.

If God had wanted us to get the idea of undifferentiated parity, this scenario would have been helpful!

But He chose to do it the way He did it. None of the details above was needed to teach one-flesh union in marriage. I've only seen one explanation that satisfactorily answers the question, "Why did God do it the way He did it?" and it's this: in God's mind, Adam was in a place of leadership.

IMO, the data from Genesis point unanimously to a leadership position for the man. However, any lingering doubts are laid to rest in the NT where the events of Gen 2-3 are used as a basis for male leadership in church and home.

My standard caveat: the complementarian position sees man and woman equal before God in dignity and value, working together in partnership, with the man in a leadership role. The NT seems to envision wives in a Christian marriage as doing virtually everything except assuming leadership over their husbands, and women in the church doing virtually everything except serving as elders.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Why not women elders? The qualifications for deacons also include 'being the husband of one wife', and yet there were women deacons in New Testament times.

In addition to this, when Sarah told Abraham to cast Hagar out, God backed her up. And you still haven't given account for Deborah.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

I might add that Deborah was one of the best judges, as measured by the information we have. Think about Samson and Eli and Gideon. Surely she was more suitable than they were.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Furthermore, would you not consider Mother Teresa as an elder?

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

John, I recognize your points as being logical and thoughtful. I mean no disrespect to you. But I don't think the Lord hesitates to work outside what we consider His boundaries. He told the Jews not to marry those from other nations, and then incorporated Ruth into the Messianic line, along with Rahab. He called Pharaoh His servant. He gave David Saul's wives. He's not a tame Lion.

[arron (arron)]

there is in 11 john a verse which says to the elect lady.. i know this can mena a church but why not a real lady. they were always working in GODS WORK someway and they stll should be. after all the church is made up mostly of women . look and see how many men are in a congregation and how many women.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

"The word "humanity" used to include the human race. "

John, if God had wanted to mention only the man in Gen 1:26, He would have used the Hebrew word 'iysh', which means "male". Instead He used the word Adam, which has the broader meaning mankind. Take a look at this verse for instance:
Gen 5:1-2
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

The word for "mankind" in this verse is adam in Hebrew.

That Adam gave Eve a new name is a tradition which is still seen today. When a major event occurs in a persons life, that persons name is changed by other people, not themselves. We seem to forget that Adam and Eve were the only people around. You seem to have adopted Jim's view about the naming, but if you do, then you must also recognize that women should rule over men, since even though Adam gave Eve a name, Eve named their first three sons. Whatever method you use to interpret the Bible must be used to interpret the whole Bible and not only a few isolated incidents.


Actually 1 Tim 2 doesn't say "deacon's wives, it says "women". The Bible recognizes that there are deaconesses as well, e.g. Phoebe was one (the Greek uses the feminine form of diakonis). Why the Bible mentions that bishops and deacons should be the husbands of one wife was to prohibit polygamy from entering the church. Women have never married more than one man, and thus they don't need such a command and consequently the Bible says only women, and not a woman of one husband.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

1 Tim 2:11-13: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

Is this prohibition directed to Ephesian woman who were teaching a heresy? I think not because:

1. When heresies are addressed in this letter, there is no indication that the spokespeople are women.

2. The larger context in 1Tim 2 is about gender-distinct modes of worship and conduct, not heresy.

3. If this is just about heresy, why the concern with "have authority"? Why not just leave it at "don't teach"?

4. If this is just about heresy, why the concern with teaching men? Shouldn't heretics also be prevented from teaching other women and children?

5. This prohibition applies to ALL women. If meant to silence heretics, why not exempt the women who were still orthodox?

6. Fortunately, Paul himself gives the ground for this rule: "For (Gr: 'gar', assigning a reason) Adam was formed first..."

Paul wants a woman to refrain from teaching or exercising authority over a man (= serving as an elder), NOT because of a local heresy, NOT because Ephesian society would be offended, NOT for any reason other than that in Paul's mind the sequence of creation implied a permanent leadership role for men in the church.

This is entirely consistent with the facts of Genesis, Jesus' appointment of male apostles, and Paul's requirement that elders be male.

(Misc observations: Paul wanted women educated. Learning in quietness and full submission was likely the typical demeanor for all students. "She must be silent" is understood as only applying to "not teaching or having authority over a man".)

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

"He's not a tame Lion."

Bob, that's one of my favorite quotes.

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">Yet your desire and craving will be for (against) your husband (meaning: you will desire to be in his place)</font>

This is the result of sin part of this verse. Usurpation of authority on both the part of the man and the woman brought pain and death--as well as enmity--between the parties and God and between the man and the woman.

<font color="0000ff">he will rule over you</font>

This is the gracious part of this verse, in other words nothing is different from the order of creation in the first place.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

So God made a mistake with Deborah. Okay. Thanks. Just wanted to know.

[nonotone (nonotone)]

non sequitur Bob, As a judge Deborah was representing civil (and military) authority as a Prophetess/Judge in the Theocracy of Israel. When she is inagurated to this office it is clearly mentioned that she is "the wife of Lappidoth" (Judges 4:4). There is no indication that God's original Genesis "order" for the Home and Church is suspended or abbrogated here.

No credible scholar that I'm aware (liberal or no) believes that the "O.T. period of the judges" is in force today.

However, if I am summoned to court today and appear before a female judge -OR- state's attorney then I am required to submit to her God-given authority (Romans 13) while her court is in session - however her authority does not extend to ruling in my home per se - (providing I'm not found guilty for a civil or criminal violation carried out while exercising duties as the head of my home). In other words not Deborah or any woman judge today usurps the basic right of a free man to rule his home according to the Scriptures.

Brian

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Does this sound like civil authority to you?

6 'And she sent and called Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded [you], Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 men from the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun?

*** 7 And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin's army, to meet you at the river Kishon with his chariots and his multitude, and I will deliver him into your hand?'

Paul had a sphere of authority in the New Testament. Jerusalem was not under his jurisdiction. He was not the first pope.

From John: 1 Tim 2:11-13: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

I would point out here, as I have previously on other threads, that Paul presents this prohibition of women teaching men as from himself, his own policy. He could have said 'the Lord does not permit it' or even just 'it is not permitted'. But he used himself as the source of this policy. That is why I do not believe it pertains here and now for everyone. Jesus did not say this. No one else in the Bible (correct me if I'm wrong) gave such a prohibition. Is that any way to form a doctrine?

[nonotone (nonotone)]

it is clearly military authority in this case Bob - being exercised through Deborah's call as a prophetess. That's the context and this is _early_ in the life of national Israel's occupation of the land. Deborah is giving military/civil commands at the instruction of God.

As far as Paul goes, what you are saying seems typical of the view that thinks whenever Paul does not explicitly say "God says this" that it is merely Paul's opinion. Unless Paul specifically gives "his own judgement" (like for widows remarrying in 1 Cor 7:40) then folks like me take it as God's authoritative instruction coming through an Apostle that He appointed and inspired to write His Holy Word.

Clearly our difference in hermeneutics is tied to our difference in the view of the authority of Scripture. And BTW, I'm all for truly rigorous scholarship, archeology, etc. What I won't compromise with is the authority and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures.

[cordell (cordell)]

non sequitor bob. What a good name.

Actually those two verses do sound like civil authority to me.

[cordell (cordell)]

Key verses for understanding the book of Judges:


In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
Judges 17:26, 21:25

Also good verses for understanding the philosophy of theology, ecclesiology, soteriology, hermeneutics and any other body of biblical doctrine as espoused by the usual suspects on FactNet.

[cordell (cordell)]

The verse no one likes:

<font color="0000ff">Then to Adam He said, "<u>Because</u> you have listened to the voice of your wife <font color="000000">(that's one)</font>, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'<font color="000000">(that's two)</font>; Cursed is the ground because of you</font>

Because he listened to his wife...

It's all about abdication by one and usurpation by the pair of them.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Cordell, nice to have you back!
Now about Deborah. You are right that everyone did what was right in his own eyes in Israel during the period of the Judges. But you have missed the point: it was BECAUSE people did what was right in their own eyes, that GOD SENT judges to return peace in the land. They lived in a vicious cycle for a few centuries because of their habit of returning to sin after the judges had restored peace to the land.
1. People did what they wanted
2. Their enemies begant to oppress them
3. They cried to God
4. God sent a judge to deliver them
5. Peace reigned in the land
UNTIL...
1. People did what they wanted.... etc.

The following is a perfect example of this:
Judg 4:1-5
When Ehud was dead, the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD. 2 So the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who dwelt in Harosheth Hagoyim. 3 And the children of Israel cried out to the LORD; for Jabin had nine hundred chariots of iron, and for twenty years he harshly oppressed the children of Israel.

4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 And she would sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. And the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.
And how about the song of Deborah after Israel's victory:

Judg 5:6-9
6 "In the days of Shamgar, son of Anath,
In the days of Jael,
The highways were deserted,
And the travelers walked along the byways.
7 Village life ceased, it ceased in Israel,
Until I, Deborah, arose,
Arose a mother in Israel.
8 They chose new gods;
Then there was war in the gates;
Not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel.
9 My heart is with the rulers of Israel
Who offered themselves willingly with the people.
Bless the LORD!

And about your little comment: you truly believe that, don't you? How sad.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

The commandmant to not eat was given to Adam before Eve was around. We have no record that Adam told Eve.

Genesis 1:16 'And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;

*** 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

*** 18 Now the Lord God said, It is not good (sufficient, satisfactory) that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper meet (suitable, adapted, complementary) for him.'

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

I'm not sure how you come to your conclusions Cordell, but let me give you something to think about:

1. If Adam abdicated his responisbility, then how could Eve have usurped it from him?

2. Adam was next to Eve when the Serpent spoke to her, which means that he heard what the Serpent said. This is also evident from the fact that Adam sinned WILFULLY, knowing fully well what he was doing. If he didn't know what the Serpent said, then he couldn't have sinned on purpose, but would have been innocent. Rom 5 charges him with offense, transgression and sin, which gives a clear picture of Adam knowing what he was doing was wrong.
3. Since Adam knew what the Serpent said, he could have stopped Eve when she looked at the fruit, took it, ate of it, and gave to him. What did he do? Nothing. He didn't stop her, he didn't say anything. Instead he took the fruit and ate it also, knowing that he was going to die as a result.
4. Eve listened to the Serpent, Adam listened to Eve. Both sinned and had to face the consequences. Some say that because Eve was deceived, women cannot be in leadership. How does Adam's actions make men more suitable: he knew what he was doing and instead of taking responsibilty for his action, he blamed Eve. For sure Eve's "counsel" (whatever it was that she said) was wrong since she was deceived by the Serpent, but didn't Adam have a responsiblity to primarily listen to God? Isn't that what God is after when he tells Adam that he shouldn't have listened to Eve instead of Him? Isn't he trying to make Adam responsible for his own actions instead of allowing him to blame Eve for it? Since Adam had HEARD the commandment to not to eat of the tree, God is pointing out that he shouldn't have paid any attention to other voices, since his obedience was firstly to God, and secondarily to humans.

John, Jesus appointed male apostles because the founders of Israel were twelve men, so also in the church. It has to do with the symmetry of the Bible, not with gender distinctions.

Rev 21:12-14
Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west. 14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.


I forgot this verse about the judges:
Judg 2:16-19
16 Nevertheless, the LORD raised up judges who delivered them out of the hand of those who plundered them. 17 Yet they would not listen to their judges, but they played the harlot with other gods, and bowed down to them. They turned quickly from the way in which their fathers walked, in obeying the commandments of the LORD; they did not do so. And when the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed them and harassed them. 19 And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they reverted and behaved more corruptly than their fathers, by following other gods, to serve them and bow down to them. They did not cease from their own doings nor from their stubborn way.

Only civil/military authority? If Deborah was a prophetess, then she was a spokesperson for God, and if that was her function then she spoke with authority in the matters of faith as well:

Judg 6:7-10
And it came to pass, when the children of Israel cried out to the LORD because of the Midianites, 8 that the LORD sent a prophet to the children of Israel, who said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'I brought you up from Egypt and brought you out of the house of bondage; 9 and I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of all who oppressed you, and drove them out before you and gave you their land. 10 Also I said to you, "I am the LORD your God; do not fear the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell." But you have not obeyed My voice.'

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Eve did know that she was not to eat of the tree, as evident here:

Gen.3:2 'And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat the fruit from the trees of the garden,

*** 3 Except the fruit from the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'

But God Himself may have told her. It is interesting to ponder where the 'neither shall you touch it' comes from. It could actually have been said by God to Eve, knowing that she would eat it if she touched it. It could have been fabricated by either Eve or Adam. We don't know. If it was fabricated, perhaps that opened a sort of window for sin.

I don't think that taking the judges God raised up as being similar to modern day judges is very wise. The leaders these judges followed were Moses and Joshua. Moses and Joshua didn't have titles or labels, but God also raised them up to lead the entire people. The people had come to Moses for advice and decisions in virtually everything until Moses' father in law suggested he get others involved. They went to Moses as to the one who spoke with God. I believe they went to Deborah in the same way, not just for settlement of disputes or as a government official. She was in touch with God for them.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

"No credible scholar that I'm aware (liberal or no) believes that the "O.T. period of the judges" is in force today."

And why do they say this? It is because they cannot fit Deborah into their dogmas.
If judges isn't valid as an authoritative book that forms our NT doctrines, then Genesis isn't valid either and that would take away your argument about male headship in the home and church. You can't take one book that fits your doctrines and disregard another that doesn't. It is all or nothing. IF you want to use Genesis as the base for your doctrines, then you must also include Judges since ALL Scripture is given by God and is profitable for doctrine. Now, before Jimmy boy will write a long letter telling me how I contradict myself, I don't believe that OT law is in force today, but I do believe that the NT is based on the OT and that we should study it as well.

"it is clearly military authority in this case Bob - being exercised through Deborah's call as a prophetess. That's the context and this is _early_ in the life of national Israel's occupation of the land."

Don't forget that in Israel civil law and religious law was one and the same. Since Deborah, as Bob correctly pointed out, had the same function as Moses, she was using the Law as her basis for her advice. One wonders: where were the priests, who were supposed to teach the law to the people? They are mentioned a few times, but nothing too exiting. Seems to me that even the priests were into idolatry, which would explain why God had to raise judges.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

John, since you seem to believe in reading the Bible exactly as it is written could you please explain to me the meaning of the following:

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Do these two verses mean that a person who is not baptized is not saved?

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

One more thing: Moses was a prophet as well, which means that Deborah had the same function as he did since she was a prophetess

Deut 34:10
But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Roberta, since you have a Greek Grammar book (I couldn't find one here in Meford; must order one over the internet) could you explain what difference there is between gunee' and gunaiki? I believe that the first one has a definite article (THE woman), which would make 1 Tim 2:11 say: let THE woman learn in silence...
Thanks

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Just ran across this essay:


Priestesses in the Church?
by C.S. Lewis
1948

…I heard that the Church of England was being advised to declare women capable of Priests' Orders. I am, indeed, informed that such a proposal is very unlikely to be seriously considered by the authorities. To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other Churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation. My concern with the proposal is of a more theoretical kind. The question involves something even deeper than a revolution in order.

I have every respect for those who wish women to be priestesses. I think they are sincere and pious and sensible people. Indeed, in a way they are too sensible… I am tempted to say that the proposed arrangement would make us much more rational "but not near so much like a Church".

For at first sight all the rationality is on the side of the innovators. We are short of priests. We have discovered in one profession after another that women can do very well all sorts of things which were once supposed to be in the power of men alone. No one among those who dislike the proposal is maintaining that women are less capable than men of piety, zeal, learning and whatever else seems necessary for the pastoral office. What, then, except prejudice begotten by tradition, forbids us to draw on the huge reserves which could pour into the priesthood if women were here, as in so many other professions, put on the same footing as men? And against this flood of common sense, the opposers (many of them women) can produce at first nothing but an inarticulate distaste, a sense of discomfort which they themselves find it hard to analyse.

That this reaction does not spring from any contempt for women is, I think, plain from history. The Middle Ages carried their reverence for one Woman to a point at which the charge could be plausibly made that the Blessed Virgin became in their eyes almost "a fourth Person of the Trinity". But never, so far as I know, in all those ages was anything remotely resembling a sacerdotal office attributed to her. All salvation depends on the decision which she made in the words Ecce ancilla; she is united in nine months' inconceivable intimacy with the eternal Word; she stands at the foot of the cross. But she is absent both from the Last Supper and from the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost. Such is the record of Scripture. Nor can you daff it aside by saying that local and temporary conditions condemned women to silence and private life. There were female preachers. One man had four daughters who all "prophesied", i.e. preached. There were prophetesses even in Old Testament times. Prophetesses, not priestesses.

At this point the common sensible reformer is apt to ask why, if women can preach, they cannot do all the rest of a priest's work. This question deepens the discomfort of my side. We begin to feel that what really divides us from our opponents is a difference between the meaning which they and we give to the word "priest". The more they speak (and speak truly) about the competence of women in administration, their tact and sympathy as advisers, their national talent for "visiting", the more we feel that the central thing is being forgotten. To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents us to God and God to us. Our very eyes teach us this in church. Sometimes the priest turns his back on us and faces the East - he speaks to God for us: sometimes he faces us and speaks to us for God. We have no objection to a woman doing the first: the whole difficulty is about the second. But why? Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? Certainly not because she is necessarily, or even probably, less holy or less charitable or stupider than a man. In that sense she may be as "God-like" as a man; and a given women much more so than a given man. The sense in which she cannot represent God will perhaps be plainer if we look at the thing the other way round.

Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to "Our Mother which art in heaven" as to "Our Father". Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.

Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity. Common sense, disregarding the discomfort, or even the horror, which the idea of turning all our theological language into the feminine gender arouses in most Christians, will ask "Why not? Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?"

But Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity. It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery. Without drawing upon religion, we know from our poetical experience that image and apprehension cleave closer together than common sense is here prepared to admit; that a child who has been taught to pray to a Mother in Heaven would have a religious life radically different from that of a Christian child. And as image and apprehension are in an organic unity, so, for a Christian, are human body and human soul.

The innovators are really implying that sex is something superficial, irrelevant to the spiritual life. To say that men and women are equally eligible for a certain profession is to say that for the purposes of that profession their sex is irrelevant. We are, within that context, treating both as neuters.

As the State grows more like a hive or an ant-hill it needs an increasing number of workers who can be treated as neuters. This may be inevitable for our secular life. But in our Christian life we must return to reality. There we are not homogeneous units, but different and complementary organs of a mystical body. Lady Nunburnholme has claimed that the equality of men and women is a Christian principle. I do not remember the text in scripture nor the Fathers, nor Hooker, nor the Prayer Book which asserts it; but that is not here my point. The point is that unless "equal" means "interchangeable", equality makes nothing for the priesthood of women. And the kind of equality which implies that the equals are interchangeable (like counters or identical machines) is, among humans, a legal fiction. It may be a useful legal fiction. But in church we turn our back on fictions. One of the ends for which sex was created was to symbolize to us the hidden things of God. One of the functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between Christ and the Church. We have no authority to take the living figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical figures.

This is what common sense will call "mystical". Exactly. The Church claims to be the bearer of a revelation. If that claim is false then we want not to make priestesses but to abolish priests. If it is true, then we should expect to find in the Church an element which unbelievers will call irrational and which believers will call supra-rational. There ought to be something in it opaque to our reason though not contrary to it - as the facts of sex and sense on the natural level are opaque. And that is the real issue. The Church of England can remain a church only if she retains this opaque element. If we abandon that, if we retain only what can be justified by standards of prudence and convenience at the bar of enlightened common sense, then we exchange revelation for that old wraith Natural Religion.

It is painful, being a man, to have to assert the privilege, or the burden, which Christianity lays upon my own sex. I am crushingly aware how inadequate most of us are, in our actual and historical individualities, to fill the place prepared for us. But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer. Only one wearing the masculine uniform can (provisionally, and till the Parousia) represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him. We men may often make very bad priests. That is because we are insufficiently masculine. It is no cure to call in those who are not masculine at all. A given man may make a very bad husband; you cannot mend matters by trying to reverse the roles. He may make a bad male partner in a dance. The cure for that is that men should more diligently attend dancing classes; not that the ballroom should henceforward ignore distinctions of sex and treat all dancers as neuter. That would, of course, be eminently sensible, civilized, and enlightened, but, once more, "not near so much like a Ball".

…We cannot shuffle or tamper so much. With the Church…we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Or rather, we are not dealing with them but (as we shall soon learn if we meddle) they are dealing with us.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

John, let me begin by telling you how much I admire C.S. Lewis. I have read most of his books andfind him to be a fascinating writer. Yet, he isn't infallible and a lot of his opinions are false, such as the belief in a purgatory etc. The main problem with his eloquent text (I must say that he is one of the best writers I know) is that he argues the issue from a male perspective without having a need to dwell on the subject more than necessary to refute it.

"Lady Nunburnholme has claimed that the equality of men and women is a Christian principle. I do not remember the text in scripture nor the Fathers, nor Hooker, nor the Prayer Book which asserts it; but that is not here my point."

It is here were the problem lies: he doesn't view the genders as equal, which is stated in the Scripture many times: e.g. Gal 3:28 (we are all one in Him), 1 Cor 12 and Rom 12 (we are all individual members of Him). The church Fathers are of little help of finding the concept of equality since most of them held the view of Romanism, Judaism or Greeks. That one is a Christian doesn't automatically mean that one has accepted all of its teachings.

"That this reaction does not spring from any contempt for women is, I think, plain from history."
This is a quote that I find utterly incredible since history AND the church fathers prove the contempt men have shown towards women. Allow me to give a few examples:
1. ... Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex, while production of woman comes from defect in the active force. "Thomas Aquinas"
2.God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, adn assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matters to the woman "Early church father John Chrysostom" (A.D. 347-407)
3. Men should not sit and listen to a woman... even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they came from the mouth of a woman "Early church father Origien" (A.D. 185-254)
4. The woman is subject to the man, on accoutn of the weakness of her nature, both of mind and of body. Man is the beginning of woman and her end, just as God is the beginning and end of every creature. Woman is in subjection according to the law of natur, but a slave is not. Children ought to love their father more than their mother "Thomas Aquinas"
5. Do you not know that you are [each] an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of your lives in this age; the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: ou are the unsealer of that [forbidden] tree": you are the first deserters of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. On account of your desert - that is, death - even the Son of God had to die. "Tertullian (A.D. 155-220
6. Woman was evil from the beginning, a gate of death, a disciple of the servant, the devil's accomplice, a fount of deception, a dogstart to godly labours, rust corrupting the saints; whose perilous face hath overgrown such as had already become almost angels. Lo, woman is the head of sin, a weapon of the devil, expulsion from the Paradise, mother of guilt, corruption of the ancient law. "Lady Nunburnholme has claimed that the equality of men and women is a Christian principle. I do not remember the text in scripture nor the Fathers, nor Hooker, nor the Prayer Book which asserts it; but that is not here my point. "From a collection of views on women complied by Salimbene, a Thirteen-century Fransiscan monk" (1221-1288)

There is a whole lot more, but I think this will suffice.

"There were prophetesses even in Old Testament times. Prophetesses, not priestesses."

Yes, but in the NT there is a general priesthood (1 Pet 2:9) which includes all believers. The most interesting thing about this argument is that the NT doesn't recognize priesthood as a organized office. It is something we all are, and which should be exercised by all. In the OT priests were responsible of knowing the Law and teaching it the people. In the NT we are also told to know the Law of Christ and to teach it to all people. The Great Commission tells us to go and TEACH all new disciples. To be able to disciple, you need to be mature. The following passage is a reference to the role of priests:
Heb 5:12-14
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

The priests had to know what was clean and unclean (Good and evil) to be able to teach the people (Lev 11). The writer here tells the Messianic congregation that they had not reached the level of maturity necessary to teach otehr since they weren't able to discerne between good and evil. Notice that the letter is for both men and women, since both men and women have a priestly duty to perform.

Another issue that doesn't quite add up is the issue of prophets and prophetesses. Lewis acknowledges that there were female prophets who spoke to the people from God since this was their role. Why should women be restricted from speaking on behalf of God to the people in the NT if that was the norm in the OT and especially if we take into account the fact that prophetesses existed even in the NT times which was a promise of God (Joel 2)?

"Only one wearing the masculine uniform can (provisionally, and till the Parousia) represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him."

This is a very curios statement. If we are all feminine to Him, why should there be an element of masculine among us. If the church is inherently feminine, shouldn't we let Jesus be the masculine element, which means that we should all be equal in how we relate to Him since we are all feminine before Him?

John, let me finnish by telling you that I respect you greatly and I enjoy our discussions. We don't need to agree to be able to respect each other and the more I discuss this issue, the more I find that it is really about people, not doctrines; it is more about being Christ-like than about being right. (not that I don't want to be right...LOL)

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Paul and Women Teachers:
Understanding 1Timothy, Chapters 1 &amp; 2

By Dianne D. McDonnell

Paul has a problem. He left Timothy behind in Ephesus to deal with false teachers-both men and women. "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain ones ("men" is not in the Greek text but "tisin" meaning ones) not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work..." 1 Timothy 1:3-4, New International Version Bible quoted throughout.

The situation has gotten so bad that Paul writes the young minister Timothy that he must command some to stop their false teaching of "myths and genealogies". He describes the situation further.

1 Tim 1:6-7 "Some have wandered away from these (a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith) and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm."
Paul complains that these would-be teachers don't know what they are talking about, yet are expressing their wrong opinions confidently. Then Paul launches into a discussion of sin and the law that seems to be refuting concepts taught by these wrong "teachers of the law". We see only Paul's half of this communication; we do not have the message from Timothy that explains the current problems in Ephesus that Paul is responding to.

What was Ephesus like?
Ephesus was a wealthy city that revolved around the massive Temple of Diana, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Understanding the religion of Diana, also known as Artemis, is very important in understanding the background of the Ephesians. Notice in the passage below that Diana/Artemis was believed to protect women during childbirth.

"'Artemis of the Ephesians' was not a Greek divinity, but Asiatic. This is shown by the fact that eunuchs were employed in her worship-- a practice quite foreign to Greek ideas. She was not regarded as a virgin but as mother and foster-mother, as is clearly shown by the multitude of breasts in the rude effigy. She was undoubtedly a representative of the same power presiding over conception and birth that was adored in Palestine under the name Ashtoreth. Her worship, frantic and fanatical after the manner of Asia, was traced back to the Amazons. Her temple at Ephesus was one of the wonders of the world, but its great glory was the 'image which fell down from heaven' (Acts 19:35)." New Unger's Bible Dictionary published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois, 1988.

Thousands of women died in childbirth or in illnesses following childbirth. A goddess that could supposedly protect them would have a very loyal following.

How were men attracted to this religion of a multi-breasted goddess? Ritual prostitution was a part of the worship of Diana. Paul may be fighting these sexual practices when in chapter 1:20 he addresses "adulterers and perverts" and then urges Timothy to "fight the good fight (against wrong doctrines), holding on to the faith and a good conscience." Some who have rejected faith and a good conscience (meaning they are engaged in sinful practices) are Hymenaeus and Alexander whose teachings are blasphemy.

Next Paul urges prayers for peaceful lives. Recorded in Acts 19:24-41 is Paul's violent conflict with Demetrius, a silver craftsmen making shrines to Diana and the city-wide riot that followed. Paul probably has this specific episode in mind when he urges church members at Ephesus to offer "prayers...that we may live peaceful and quiet lives..." 1Tim 2:1-2. The word he uses for peaceful, (heesuchion from hesuchios, Strong's 2272), is the male form of the word and it translates as "peaceful". The feminine form of the same word (hesuchia, hay-soo-khee'-ah, 2271); is used twice in 1 Tim. 2:11-12 describing the atmosphere in which a woman should learn and what Paul feels should be a woman's attitude. The same word used in the same chapter should have the same translation, "peaceful"—a peaceful learning atmosphere—the same atmosphere Paul urges them to pray for so that they might have undisturbed lives! Instead of being translated as "peaceful" as it is in the male form, the female form of the same word was translated as "silence". There are many clues in the second chapter of 1Timothy that an angry dispute has occurred in church, and peacefulness is the exact attribute that Paul advocates for both women and men.

So in 1 Tim 2: 11 when Paul uses the female form of the same word, he is requesting a peaceful atmosphere free of anger and disputing. But lets go on with our understanding of the ideas that Paul and Timothy were fighting at Ephesus.

Myths and Genealogies
Remember when Paul argued against "myths" in 1 Tim 1:4? It was commonly believed at Ephesus that the original founders of the city were Amazons, and that the present residents were descended from these Amazons. An "AMAZON, was one of a race of warlike women who made slaves of the men they captured. According to ancient Greek tradition, ....The largest city they built was Ephesus. There they built many magnificent temples for the worship of Ares and Artemis." The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, article by Padraic Colum, pg. 344.

The Amazons are believed by some historians to have been real women whose exploits were magnified into myth. These Amazons are reported to have believed they were not only equal to men, but far superior to men! Therefore, proponents of the Amazons' goddess Diana taught female superiority, and this background was causing marital problems for the Christian couples of Ephesus! Paul addresses this problem in Ephesians 5:22 as he urges wives to defer to their Christian husbands. The problem was that Ephesian women had been taught in their pre-Christian days that they were descended from Amazons-- a superior female race! This would explain the false teachers devoting themselves to "myths and endless genealogies" mentioned in 1 Tim 1:4. The long genealogies linked them to their Amazon predecessors, whom they believed to be real people that founded Ephesus. Paul was convinced that they were mythological.

There is another hint that there were some angry confrontations going on in the Ephesus church when Paul inserts in 1 Tim 2: 8, "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing." Would this comment be necessary if there hadn't been some anger and some disputing going on? Paul is correcting the men who participated in these angry outbursts, urging prayer not anger or arguments!

What was the likely cause of these disputes? The next verses tell us. Some women were dressing immodestly, even indecently, and were dripping with gold and pearls like the prophetesses of Diana. These women were very likely advocating that one old standby of Diana's religion...female domination! Paul upbraids them for their indecent clothing and tells them to "dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls...but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God." Did you notice his sideways swipe at "women who profess to worship God"? Paul felt these women weren't truly worshipping God, only professing to worship God!

A Dilemma of Unconverted Wives?
At Pentecost both men and women miraculously spoke foreign languages, Acts 1:14, 2:4. Acts 2:7 should read, "...are not all thesethese (The word "men" is not in the Greek in verse 7, 8, 13, or 15) who are speaking Galileans?" Because women were speaking also, Peter felt the day of Pentecost fulfilled the prophecy of Joel 2:28-30. "...Your sons and daughters will prophesy...." Since women spoke languages during Pentecost services, following Pentecost, both men and women members could use their God-given spiritual gifts during church services. Women were praying and prophesying during services, 1 Cor 11:5, and a controversy arose over women wearing veils in public.

In this setting, men bringing unconverted wives to services could create problems. Were these wives allowed to participate as converted women did? If so, would they teach false doctrines? Was this the case with the wealthy women with low-cut dresses, gold and pearls, who "profess" to worship God, but still are loyal to Artemis and the Amazons? Notice especially 1 Tim 4:7, where Paul links "godless myths" directly to wives!

After dealing with the immoral appearance of these women, Paul launches into his decision. A literal translation from the Greek is: "A wife, in peacefulness, I let learn in all obedience (learning quietly and not causing angry disputes), but to teach a wife (the Greek for wife or woman is the same word, "gunee") I am not allowing (Paul uses the present indicative tense), not even to dominate (a) husband, but to be in peacefulness."

Paul is letting an Ephesian wife learn peacefully, obediently, but he is not allowing a wife to teach nor to dominate a husband, but to be in a peaceful state. Were unconverted wives the ones who first needed to learn peacefully and who were not presently allowed to teach because they were spreading myths? We lack Timothy's account sent to Paul.

The following chart shows the original order of the Greek words and information about their translation. The simplified, unaccented Greek is followed by English transliterations, and the numbers are from Strong's Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. The English words below the Greek are from accepted Greek-English sources.

THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE GREEK WORDS
of I Tim. 2:11-12

Greek

English
Strongs gunh
Gunee
1. Wife/Woman
1135 en
en
in
1722 hsucia
heesuchia
peacefulness
2271 manqanetw
manthanetoo
2. I let learn
3129

en
en
with/in
1722 pash
pasee
all
3956 upotagh
hypotagee
obedience
5292 didaskein
didaskein
3. to teach
1321 de
de
4. but
1161 gunaiki
gunaiki
5. wife/woman
1135

ouk
ouk
not
3756 epitrepw
epitrepoo
I am allowing
2010 oude
oude
6. not even
3761 auqentein
authentein
7. to dominate
831

andro
andros
8. husband/man
465 all
all
but
235 einai
einai
to be
1511 en
en
in
1722 hsucia
heesuchia
peacefulness
2271

"Gunee" can be translated either wife or woman, Strong’s Greek Hebrew Dictionary, 1135, "a woman;…a wife."
let learn The w ending indicates "I" as in "I am allowing" two lines below. Basic Greek in 30 Minutes a Day by Jim Found, Page 84. Most translations omit this.
didasko Jesus uses a form of the same verb, "didasko" 1321: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching ("didaskontes" 1321) them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20.
"de" In Greek usage the particle "de" modifies the word that comes directly before it, and becomes "but to teach" in this case.
"Gunaiki" translated "wife" in I Cor. 7:3 and 27. Can be a wife or a woman. see 1)
"Oude" translated "not even" in I Cor. 11:14, "Doth not even nature teach…."
to dominate - Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament I Tim. 2:12,"The King James Version ‘usurp authority’ is a mistake." Strong’s: to act of oneself, dominate.
"Andros" can mean husband or man, Thayer’s Greek Definitions, 435. The same word is used in Luke 2:36, "Anna…lived with her husband seven years…."
"A wife, in peacefulness, I let learn in all obedience (not causing angry disputes), but to teach (a) wife I am not allowing (present indicative tense—he is not presently allowing a wife to teach), not even to dominate (a) husband, but to be in peacefulness."
Paul uses the Greek verb form that indicates present action, not a command verb form, for the present he is not allowing these women of Ephesus to teach.

"Paul does not command the women not to teach. He employs the present active indicative for "allow." The present tense in Greek principally denotes continuous present action. It can refer to present necessity and obligation and to potential action. Greek has its own imperative mood which is not here employed. Commands can also be phrased in the aorist or the future indicative. Neither of these tenses is here used. Nor does Paul use the perfect tense to denote an action in the past which has changed the state of affairs. Paul is saying: 'I am not presently allowing a woman to teach.'" Beyond the Curse, Aida Besancon Spencer, Pg. 84-85.

An already established universal rule on women not teaching would already be understood by Timothy. Paul would not be writing in the present active indicative mood.

"Paul does not assume that Timothy already knows this rule. Had this rule been established and universal, is it possible that Timothy, who had worked many years with Paul, would not have known it already? Paul often reminds readers of traditions they should know by saying, 'You know,' or 'Do you not know?' or 'According to the traditions which I delivered to you.'" Paul, Women and Wives, Craig S. Keener, Pg. 112.

Wives Dominating Husbands?
The fourteenth Greek word in this passage, "authentein" is used only this one place in the entire New Testament so there is some controversy about its rightful interpretation. Several sources say that the KJV "to usurp authority over a man" is over translated, meaning more is added than is in the original word. Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament states of 1 Tim. 2:12,"The King James Version 'usurp authority' is a mistake." Strong's defines "authentein" 831, "to act of oneself, to dominate".

What were these errant wives teaching? They taught the old doctrine from Diana, female superiority! They were teaching "to dominate a man" (Strong's 831) or more specifically, "to dominate a husband".

Paul uses the first married couple as his example. "For Adam was formed first, then Eve," verse 13. Paul is saying, "Wives can't be superior to husbands! Adam, the first husband, was formed before his wife, Eve! Next Paul argues in 1 Tim 2:14, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman (wife) being deceived was in the transgression." Not only was Adam formed first, he was also not deceived, but his wife was deceived! (Here Paul presents a doubtful argument, as both were tricked by Satan.)

Remember that Diana promised wives protection during the dangerous process of childbirth? Paul deals with this next in 1 Tim. 2:15, "But women (wives) will be saved through (or throughout) childbearing (she will be protected throughout the dangerous process of childbearing)-- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." The Phillips Bible translates the first part, "Women will come safely through childbirth".

Some think that this passage refers to spiritual salvation, but Paul knew that salvation can come only through Jesus Christ. The literal translation is "But she (the wife) shall be saved throughout the childbearing, if..." Paul is encouraging these women, "You wives don't need Diana to save you during childbirth, God will save you if you stay in faith, love and holiness!" This reference to a safe childbirth is another strong proof that he is dealing with wives influenced by the teachings of fertility goddess Diana/Artemis of the Ephesians.

Notice that childbirth was normally for wives, not for all women. Paul is concerned with wives who were teaching wrong concepts of female superiority and teaching other women to dominate their husbands. Since he says in verse 10 that the women in question "profess to worship God," Paul seems to have misgivings about their real intentions. They claim to worship God, yet he implies that these particular elaborately dressed women with the ornately braided hair may not really be worshipping God. Paul seems to be dealing with problems arising from unconverted wives still clinging to pagan myths and teachings, and these wives are passing myths and false doctrines on to others in the congregation. They are not to teach or practice female superiority any more!

Again, what were these wives teaching that was stirring up controversy? Most likely they taught the old myths that they were descended from Amazon women with long genealogies to prove it! Remember the charge not to devote themselves to myths and long genealogies in 1 Tim 1:4 "nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work-- which is by faith."

There had been an angry dispute in the Ephesus church causing Paul to urge the men: 1 Tim 2:8 " I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing."

Paul has obviously been asked to mediate in a fight over women in Ephesus teaching female domination, and his answer was to stop letting those Ephesian wives teach! At the start of Paul's letter he had urged "command certain ones not to teach false doctrines any longer". We begin to see that some of these false teachers were female.

Paul tells Elder Women to Teach
Yet in Titus 2:3, Paul tells Titus that elder women should be teachers of the right way of life:

"Likewise, teach the older women (elder women) to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good," (or, to be a "teacher of the right" way of life).
Paul says elder women are to be "teachers of the right" in the original Greek phrase "kalodidaskalos" Strong's 2567, a teacher of the right. He suggests they start with instructing the younger women, but he does not limit them to teaching only women.

Paul was not against all women everywhere teaching, he was against Ephesian women teaching female superiority as was one of the many problems in Ephesus. Paul argues that Adam was formed before Eve, and therefore wives can't be superior to husbands. Also he reassures Ephesian wives that God will save them during childbirth!

Paul is reacting to a local problem. He is not dealing with dedicated Christian women teaching the Ten Commandments and true doctrines.

In Paul's second recorded letter to Timothy, 2 Tim 2:2, he writes, "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable 'anthroopois' (men and women, Strong's 444-- defined by Thayer's Greek Definitions as 'a human being, whether male or female') who will also be qualified to teach others." If a person, male or female, is reliable, sound, and qualified-- then Paul says he or she should teach others God's truth!

There are many instances of Paul praising women who teach the truth such as Priscilla, see Acts 18:2,18,26; 1 Cor. 16:19; and Romans 16:3; Phoebe, a "diakonon" servant/minister in Romans 16:1, Junia in Romans 16:7, "outstanding among the apostles" Nympha, and "her house church"-- the only leader mentioned by name in Laodicea, Col. 4:15. Also Euodia and Syntyche who "contended at my side in the cause of the gospel" Phil. 4:1-3. He hails many other women as co-workers in Christ Jesus. Had Paul issued a blanket edict against all women teaching everywhere he would have reprimanded these women instead of praising them!

The Words of Jesus
Jesus tells us "...whoever practices and teaches these commands (the Ten Commandments), will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 5:19. Jesus put no gender restrictions on teaching, but said "whoever" and promises greatness for both men and women who teach the commandments. Paul was not dealing with dedicated Christian women teaching the true gospel, he was dealing with false teachers teaching myths and wrong ideas learned from the religion of the goddess Diana of the Ephesians.

Jesus praised the woman of Samaria that publicly preached the words of Jesus to the men and women of her village. He did not tell her to stop teaching them because she was a woman! Jesus praised her and told the disciples that they were harvesting where she had sowed. As a result, "Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, ...." John 4:39. Her public witness --her teaching-- resulted in conversions, and Jesus praised her and held her up as an example for the disciples!

The words of Jesus are clear commands for all of us to teach the true gospel, and we must never be misled by anyone who contradicts Jesus Christ.

For more on this subject, see the articles, "Women in Leadership" by John H. Currier, "A Church Without Women" (which deals with I Cor. 14 and other scriptures), "A Church With Women" "Bible Examples of Women Ministers" and "Requirements for Ministry: Can a Woman be a Minister?" by Dianne D. McDonnell. Also refer to "A Church with Love" by Gary L. McDonnell.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

<font color="0000ff">John, let me finnish by telling you that I respect you greatly and I enjoy our discussions. We don't need to agree to be able to respect each other.</font>

On that we completely agree! And I feel like this discussion is taking place among friends.

Going back to a previous point, if Christ is the head of everyone, and a husband the head of a wife, how can a wife have two heads?

"The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

First, man as head of woman is not a bad thing. It is in some way parallel to a relationship in the Trinity, and is not a result of the fall.

Second, this passage is not a chain of command or pecking order. It illuminates how persons or Persons relate to each other within various relationships. In the Trinity, the Father is head. In the church, Christ is head. In a Christian marriage, the man is head.

Christ could say "I and My Father are one" and "The Father is greater than I". Within the Godhead, oneness in Deity, but distinction in roles. So in marriage, oneness in humanity and redemption, distinction in roles.

To quote Lewis: <font color="0000ff">"We are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge."</font> It is mystery, intimately connected to our worship of the God who revealed Himself in Christ.


Many meanings have been proposed for "head" which do not carry the idea of "authority", however in every single case in the NT, Septuagint, and other contemporary Greek literature where person "A" is the head of person "B", the usage includes an element of authority. So in Ephesians:

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For (Gr: 'hoti' demonstrative, causative, because) the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Clearly the analogy of headship, while it may imply more, includes the idea of submission/authority. These concepts don't initially sit well with us as they were twisted and abused at GG/TBS. Where was the emphasis on the man serving, taking care of, and sacrificing himself for his wife - as Christ did for the church? But there is something so transcendent and attractive when a Christian couple choose to take part in this drama. From marriage we get insight into Christ and the church; from Christ and the church we get insight into marriage.


(Message edited by john krainis on December 30, 2005)

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

I would reiterate that the greatest among us is the servant of all; and that Christ came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. If the husband is to be seen as the head of his household, then it must be viewed with this in mind; that he is to be a servant. It's not really about rules and holding authority over others' heads. It's about spiritual enablement; about giving grace for development in Christ.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Bob, that can't be reiterated enough. On being presented with this picture of manhood, a feminist once said, "If men were like that I'd 'submit' in a heartbeat!"

We men tend to withdraw and be passive, or be overbearing and domineering. Fortunately there seems to be a spate of books and websites encouraging us men to follow the servant/leader example of Christ.

From a review of Stu Weber's "Tender Warrior":

Manhood continues to be in crisis. For many men today, their physical strength is rarely necessary. Technology and urban isolation have ripped up the landscape that men inhabit to such a degree that many men are wandering around wondering who they are and what they're here for. The extreme women's movement proclaims that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

Over the last fifteen years numerous books have been written from both secular and Christian authors to help men find their way. Stu Weber, a pastor in Oregon wrote the hugely influential Tender Warrior in 1993. Tender Warrior is full of stories and illustrations that irresistibly pull you along to Stu's appointed end: a vision of manhood mined from God's original intention for a man wrapped up in the New Testament vision of the Ultimate Tender Warrior, Jesus Christ.

At the core of Weber's vision is what he calls the four pillars of a man's heart: the Heart of a King, the Heart of a Warrior, the Heart of a Mentor, and the Heart of a Friend. I first read Tender Warrior in the mid 90s, and I was immediately caught up in his four-part description. I knew I didn't exemplify all of these characteristics as Weber describes them, but I knew I wanted to.

The Heart of the King reflects a man's provisionary heart. The part of a man that wants to offer order, mercy and justice to the world he inhabits. Think of some of the Old Testament patriarchs, people like Abraham, Moses, and David. All of these men had a sense about them that drew others to them. They were leaders; they looked ahead and prepared those around them for what was coming.

The Heart of a Warrior portrays that part of a man that wants to shield, guard, defend and protect those around him. We intuitively understand this about men, but so many are inhibited from expressing this today. Movies and the entertainment industry often portray this aspect of manhood in its harsher tones. Consequently, this true aspect of manhood is more a target for suppression than for understanding.

The Heart of a Mentor reflects that part of a man that desires to model, train, and explain. Little boys particularly expect their dads to know everything. And a dad puffs up every time he can answer his son's questions. This aspect particularly is missing today in the church as young men from broken and dysfunctional families flounder, looking for an older man to help point the way.

The Heart of a Friend describes the part of a man that is truly compassionate, loving, and committed. The apostle Paul was a tough character as expressed in the list of hardships in 2 Cor. 11:23-28, yet he talked to the Thessalonians with gentle and tender words in 1 Thess. 2:7-8.

A Man and His Family
These four pillars encapsulate four essential qualities in a man of God: leadership, protectiveness, teaching, and compassion. A man with just three of the four is out of balance. A man who just emphasizes one of the four is a caricature of a real man. Nowhere is this more evident than in the biblical picture of headship and a man's role in his family.

Our culture is horribly confused on this point. Weber sums it up neatly when he says, "Men, as husbands you have been given a trust, a stewardship, a responsibility, a duty, to husband, or manage, or care for the gifts of your wife." Part of my job as a husband is to create an environment in our home that allows my wife to be all God created her to be. She needs to be able to trust my leadership. She needs to know I will stand up for her and provide a secure environment. She needs to be comfortable in seeking my guidance and instruction. Finally, she needs to know that she is loved with a Christ-like self-sacrificing love. Weber adds, "A woman was made to be provided for, protected, and cared for. A man was made to be a provider, protector, and caregiver. Nothing is more pitiful than a man forfeiting his masculinity or a woman her femininity by transgressing the created order."

One commentator suggested that the chapter titled, "Does Anyone Here Speak Woman?" is worth the price of the book alone. Weber encourages men to realize that since men and women are inherently different, a man needs to learn a woman's language, to live with her in an understanding way as Peter commands (1 Pet. 3:7). We need to put our analytical minds to work to understand how she is put together. We won't ever get all the way there, but after all, a little mystery is what keeps marriage exciting, fresh, and interesting anyway.

Weber devotes three chapters to the incredible power of fathering. Our culture today is in dire need of real men willing to father their children. So many dads are absent either physically or emotionally. This alone accounts for so many wayward kids, both male and female alike. A father has a powerful multigenerational impact on his sons and daughters whether intentional or not. It's the nature of God's design.

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Hi All, I am not posting this as commentary to the ongoing discussion just found it interesting, especially the last chapter entitled "Powerful, Dangerous Women" and states "Perhaps most threatening to the church were two groups of women known as beguines and mystics, who claimed they could bypass the church hierarchy and communicate directly with God."

It would seem bypassing church hierarchy and communicating directly with God has been a threat to any system where man is the head and not God.


Did a Woman Serve as Pope in the Ninth Century?

(Dec. 29) -- In a medieval mystery of the Catholic Church lies evidence of a woman pope, with clues buried in ancient parchment, artwork and writings, even in tarot cards and a bizarre chair once used in a Vatican ritual.

Was there a Pope Joan -- a woman with nerve enough to disguise herself as a man and serve as pope for more than two years in the ninth century? It is one of the world's oldest mysteries. Her story first appeared in histories written by medieval monks, but today the Catholic Church dismisses it.

"Ninety percent of me thinks there was a Pope Joan," says Mary Malone, a former nun who wrote a history of women and Christianity.

Donna Cross, a novelist who spent seven years researching the time period, says the historical evidence is there. "I would say it's the weight of evidence -- over 500 chronicle accounts of her existence."

Escaping a Brutal Life

Life was often short and brutal for women living in A.D. 800.

"No woman would have been allowed to appear on the streets in public," says Malone. "That named you as a prostitute immediately. Women were confined to their homes."

In the town of Mainz, Germany, where it is thought the girl who might have became Pope Joan grew up, most people lived in mud huts. The average life span was only 30 or 40 years.

But English missionaries were bringing Christianity to Germany, and they created a monastery called Fulda, which became a center of education, books and conversation for travelers -- but it was only for boys.

In his "History of Emperors and Popes," a monk named Martin Polonus who was a close adviser to the pope wrote about a young woman from Mainz who learned Greek and Latin and became "proficient in a diversity of branches of knowledge."

Cross and other historians say a girl studying at the monastery would have no choice but to disguise herself as a boy. But how was it possible to keep the secret?

"First of all, you might want to remember that clerical robes are very body-disguising," says Cross. "Also, in the ninth century, personal hygiene was nonexistent. Nobody bathed. They washed their hands, their face, their feet, but they didn't bathe."

Also, clergy members were required to be clean shaven, and malnutrition made most men and women physically gaunt.

Polonus wrote that this woman was "led to Athens dressed in the clothes of a man by a certain lover of hers." Then, according to the 500 accounts, the woman made her way to Rome.

In the ninth century, Rome and the Vatican were nothing like today's solemn and civilized center of culture and faith. Then the center of the Christian faith was home to bawdy monks, scheming cardinals, cross-dressing saints, intrigue, melodrama, corruption and violence.

"Popes ... killed each other off, hammered each other to death," says Mary Malone, the former nun. "There were 12-year-old popes ... we have knowledge of a 5-year-old archbishop. ... It was a very odd time in history."

That also means it would have been a time of opportunity for someone with ambition and nerve. The chronicles say that's how Joan, known as John Anglicus, or English John, became secretary to a curia, a cardinal, and then, as Polonus writes, "the choice of all for pope" in the year A.D. 855.

Clues in Art

If you travel to Italy and ask questions about Pope Joan, many people will direct you toward the clues embedded in art, literature and architecture.

The Renaissance poet Giovanni Boccaccio, best known for writing "The Decameron," also wrote a book on "100 Famous Women." No. 51 is Pope Joan.

Rare book dealers in Rome pull ancient tarot cards from their shelves. The card for hidden knowledge is "La Papessa" -- the Female Pope.

Travel north to Siena to the Duomo, where inside the cathedral is a gallery of terra-cotta busts depicting 170 popes, in no particular order. In the 17th century, Cardinal Baronuis, the Vatican librarian, wrote that one of the faces was a female -- Joan the Female Pope.

Baronius also wrote that the pope at the time decreed that the statue be destroyed, but some say the local archbishop didn't want a good statue go to waste.

"The statue was transformed," believes Cross. "I mean, literally, it was scraped off, her name and written on top of Pope Zachary."

At the Basilica in St. Peter's Square are carvings by Bernini, one of the most famous artists of the 17th century. Among the carvings are eight images of a woman wearing a papal crown, and the images seem to tell the story of a woman giving birth and a baby being born.

Medieval manuscripts tell a similar tale: Two-and-a-half years into her reign, Pope Joan was in the midst of a papal procession, a three-mile trip to the Church of the Lateran in Rome, when suddenly at a crossroads, she felt sharp pains in her stomach.

She was having contractions, the stories say. The unthinkable happened -- the pope was having a baby.

"And then, shock and horror," says Malone. "And then the story gets very confused, because some of the records say she was killed and her child was killed right on the spot. Other records say she was sent to a convent and that her son grew up and later became bishop of Ostia."

Stories vary -- some say the crowd stoned her to death, others say she was dragged from the tail of a horse -- but in most accounts, Pope Joan perished that day.

In the decades that followed, the intersection was called the Vicus Pa****a -- the Street of the Female Pope -- and for more than 100 years, popes would take a detour to avoid the shameful intersection.

Polonus writes: "The Lord Pope always turns aside from the street ... because of the abhorrence of the event."

Or Just an Urban Legend?

The modern Catholic Church and many scholars dismiss the story of Pope Joan as a sort of Dark Ages urban legend.

Valerie Hotchkiss, a professor of medieval studies at Southern Methodist University in Texas, says that the story of Pope Joan was actually added to Martin Polonus' manuscript after he died.

"So he didn't write it, but it was put in very soon after his death, like around 1280 to 1290," says Hotchkiss. "And everyone picks it up from Martin Polonus."

Medieval monks were like copy machines, say some scholars, simply replicating mistakes into the historical record.

"And they're picking it up from each other and changing it and embellishing it," Hotchkiss says.

Monsignor Charles Burns, the former head of the Vatican secret archives, says the story intrigued people in the Middle Ages just as it intrigues people today. "This was almost like an Agatha Christie," he says, referring to the classic mystery writer.

Burns says there is no evidence and no documentation in the secret archives that Pope Joan existed, no relic of Pope John Anglicus anywhere.

And disbelievers can explain away the other clues. The Bernini sculptures were modeled after the niece of the pope; the Vicus Pa****a was named for a woman who lived in the area.

Powerful, Dangerous Women

Yet even those who laugh at the story of the female pope agree that the story opens a window on the history of women and sex in the Catholic Church. Women were at one time a potent and threatening force in the medieval church.

Many scholars say there were many women martyrs in that era, women who were tortured for their religious beliefs. And there were women who became saints while cross-dressing as monks.

St. Eugenia, for example, became a monk while disguised as a boy, and was so convincing she was brought to court on charges of fathering a local woman's child. She finally proved her innocence only by baring her breasts in public.

"There are over 30 saints' lives in which women dress as men for a variety of reasons, and with a variety of outcomes," says Hotchkiss, who has written about these "transvestite nuns."

Perhaps most threatening to the church were two groups of women known as beguines and mystics, who claimed they could bypass the church hierarchy and communicate directly with God.

"And they really terrified the church because they went around saying things like 'My real name is God,'" says Malone. "And so mysticism, then, gave these women ... an access to God that was parallel to the church."

These powerful women could have inspired a so-called crackdown by the church after A.D. 1000, consolidating its ranks and reaffirming the rules on celibacy among its priests, a requirement that's still controversial today.

One school of thought says the story of Pope Joan was invented as a cautionary tale. The lesson to women: Don't even think about reaching for power or you will end up like her -- exposed and humiliated.

Another school argues that it was the fear of female power that led the church to essentially expunge Pope Joan from history.

But how do historians explain the enormous purple marble chair on which popes once sat as they were crowned. The chair has a strange opening, something like a toilet seat, reportedly used to check "testiculos habet" -- or whether the pope had testicles.

David Dawson Vasquez, the director of Catholic University of America's Rome program, says that the Vatican was just using the most impressive chair it had.

"Because it's elaborate, it's purple. It was the most expensive marble of Roman times, and so it was only used for the emperor," Vasquez says. "The hole is there because it was used by the imperial Romans, perhaps as a toilet, perhaps as a birthing chair. It doesn't matter if there's a hole there, because you can still sit there and be crowned."

Others say it was a symbol of the pope giving birth to the mother church. Either way, newly minted Protestants in the 1500s had a field day making fun of the chair, and so it was hidden from view.

And so the last relic in the tale of Pope Joan is withdrawn. But Pope Joan lives on in some other place, in the shadows of a Dark Ages legend that is terrifying to some and inspiring to others.


Dec. 29, 2005 ABC News

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

BOB K,

YOUR LAST POST HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE "HEAD", NO PUN INTENDED. THIS IS THE POSITION THAT MEN SHOULD STAND IN AND MANY AMBASSADORS DO. IT'S THE FEW THAT TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT TO ENABLE THEM TO LIVE OUT THEIR AGENDA IN LIFE, KEEPING DEM WOMEN FOLK UNDER SUBJECTION. IF WE USE JESUS CHRIST AS OUR EXAMPLE AND HIS RELATION TO THE FATHER, THIS BRINGS US TO THE PLACE PAUL SPEAKS ABOUT WHEN SAYING THE MAN IS THE HEAD OF THE WOAMAN. JUST AS GOD IS THE HEAD OF CHRIST. ARE THE SON AND FATHER CO-EQUAL? I LET YOU ANSWER THAT BUT I READ SOMEWHERE THAT THE ONLY PLACE IN HISTORY THE (HOLY TRINITY) WHERE IF ANYONE HAD THE RIGHT TO PUT HIMSELF FORWARD ABOVE OTHERS IT WOULD BE THE TRINITY, BUT INSTEAD, ALL THREE DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE. THE FAHTER STEPS BACK AND PUTS FORTH THE SON. THE SON STEPS BACK AND PUTS FORTH THE HOLY SPIRIT. THE HOLY SPIRIT STEPS BACK AND PUTS FORTH THE SON. THANK YOU BOB, GTP

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Roberta, thanks for your magnificent posting, I'm going to print it so I can read it later.

C.S. Lewis, since John brought him up, wrote in his book "God at the dock" how we are not allowed to leave the original view held by Jesus and the apostels when we are defending our faith. This is very true, but the problem arises with our definition of the original view.

The early church had problems with Gnostics who claimed to have secret teachings. They didn't agree with the "orthodox" view that God was one and that besides Him there was none other. Instead they claimed that God the Creator was only "a demiurge" who wasn't the only God. The Gnostics claimed to have secret teachings which elevated one to know the true God and thus becoming superior to the ordinary Christians. The orthodox Christians vehemently defended the doctrine of One God, and to enforce the teaching, they created the slogan: "One God, One Bishop" since the gnostics held the original view of multiplicity of leaders. The orthodox view stated that since there was only one God in Heavenm there could only be one Bishop on earth as His representative. Multiplicity of representatives would have given the Gnostics an upper hand. Peter was named as the leader of the apostles since "he was the first witness of the resurrection". This claim is of course false, since Mary Magdalena saw the Risen Christ first. Nevertheless, the orthodox church adopted the view that since Peter had seen Jesus first, all authority was given him by God to rule in the church on his behalf. (Did you think Carl was the first one to teach "delegated auhtoity"?). Peter was named the first bishop of Rome which gave the city its unique staues among other "catholic" (universal) churches. Elaine Pagels writes in her book "Gnostic Gospels:"The church is to be organized in terms of strict order of superiors and subordniates, Even within the clergy, Clement (of Rome, (90-110)) inisit on ranking each member, whether bishop, priest or deacon, "in his own order", each must observe "the rules and commandments" of his position at all times"

The bishops were seen as "generals who commad an army of subordinates". And the chief advocates of this new order in the church was, of course, the bishops themselves.

Ignatius of Antioch in Syria, a bishop, was the first one to say that the hierarchial order in the church mirrored the divine hierarchy in Heaven. The laity had to, according to Ignatius, had to honor and obey the bishop as if he were God for the bishop presides in the place of God
(another GG doctrine...).

I'll continue later, got to go and clean a couple of rooms..

(Message edited by Susanna Krizo on December 31, 2005)

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

The greatest problem the church had with the gnostics was their refusal to obey the bishops. To suppress the gnostic view, the orthodox church made the bishop the monarch of the church (sole ruler), and invested in him the power to act as disciplinarian and judge over laity.
Ignatius took the view a step further: he affirmed the view, "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church", but added "to join with the bishop is to join the church; to separate oneself from the bishop is to separate oneself not only from the church, but from God Himself"
(Sounds like "Geographical will of God....)

Gnostics who believed in equality, wrote: "[orthodox] Christians want to command one another, outrivalling one another in their empty ambition; they are inflated with lust for power, each one imagining that he is superior to the others."
The orthodox church had in the beginning belived in equality, which is evdident from Clement of Alexandria's text (A.D. 180): men and women share euqlity in perfection, and are to recieve the same instruction and the same discipline. For the name "humanity" is common to both men and women: and for us "in Christ there is neither male or female." But with the idea of One God-One Bishop, equality was abolished and the view held by e.g. Tertullian prevailed: proper discipline requiered certain degress of distinction between community members, especially between men and women. This idea made it necessary for the church to abolish the elements of female in the Godhead, since the view that women were lower in the hierarchy than men, demanded that God could not have feminine traits. Up to A.D. 200 the orthodox church had believed that God had both male and female traits since God created humanity, and all creation for that matter, to be male and female (Clement of Alexander held this view still in 180, when most of the church had adopted an all male view of God). Simultaneously with the introduction of the male God, church adopted the view that clergy was "masculine", which effectively denied women the enterance to leadership roles. After A.D. 200 women were not seen in leadership in the orthodox church.

At the same time as the orthodox church became all masculine and excluded women from leadership, the church accepted the dominion of men over women as the divinely ordained order also for social and family life.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

As soon as the church had formed its leadership structure, the necessity of defining who was a member became crucial. The Gnostics held a view that the church was not a visible entity, but an invisible, formed by all believers who lived according to holiness. But for the Catholic church such a view would have caused unnecessary administrative problems since determining who lived according to holiness and who didn't would have taken too long to examine. Thus a quicker method was established: anyone who recited the creed, was baptized, attended worship services and obeyed the clegry, was considered a member of the church. One doesn't have to look too much into the future to see what implications this kind of a policy had: in A.D. 313 when the Catholic Church received the position of being the official religion of the Empire, it became socially accepted, and sometimes mandatory, to join the church. Thus the Catholic Church became a combination of saints and pagans, without discrimination of ones actual faith. But in the middle of the second century, the Catholic was still fighting Gnostisism with fervor. In his battle against heresy, Tertullian wrote that questioning leads to heresy. His opinion can be formulated as follows: a heretic is a rebel since he doesn't submit to the authority of the Bishop. And since asking questions was already seen as a person not being submissive to the teachings delivered by the Bishop, the person was seen as a rebel, and thus a heretic. The banning of questioning was Tertullian's effort of stopping Gnostics from challening the church and her doctrines, something they actively did, yet it had more far fetching implications than he may have thought of: when no one dared to challenge the official doctrines of the church, the church was able to control her members and keep them in the fold. Most of us think that the church wasn't challenged until Martin Luther came along, but it is not true. In the beginning Hippolytus defined truth as what the apostolic succession (Jesus-Peter-Bishop) of bishops guaranteed on the basis of the canon (NT) and church doctrine and he agreed with Irenaus (who had been a student of Polycarp, the disciple of John the Apostle) that the church was the sole bearer of truth. Nevertheless, when a bishop was chosen whom he disliked, Hippolytus turned against the hierarchy and teaching of the church and deemed the doctrine of the visble church as heresy. Instead he adopted the view of spiritual qualities being the qualification of who belonged to the invisible church. Tertullian, who had defended the Catholic Church fiercly, wrote, after a violent break from the Church: "The church congregates were the Lord plans it - a spiritual church for spiritual people - not the church of a number of bishops."
Those who went against the church were of the opinion that the church had either been wrong from the beginning or had gone wrong.

From this brief study two things can be deducted:
1. What we perceive to be the original form of Chritianity, is really a manmade structure of doctrines which was created to suppress Gnostism and to form a Catholic church of all the churches spread throughout the world.
2. By searching for the real and authentic system of beliefs, we may be the generation which is going to bring the invisible church to its true origins of equality, justice and love. "Without equality there can no justice", wrote Lactantius, and I would add that without justice there can be no love; the true mark of a disciple of Jesus, the Lord, the King and the Servant who loved us, is to love like He loves us. Injustice is the greatest hinderance to love.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Why the Reformation didn't change the way the church viewed women was largely because Martin Luther had a negative view of them to begin with (most likely inherited from the church and the culture). One of his comments reads as follows: "Women must neither begin or complete anything without a man: Where he is, there she must be, and bend before him as before a master, whom she shall fear and to whom she shall be subject and obedient."
Houdeon wrote earlier how Katharina (Luther's wife) took care of the household, but I add that Martin didn't abstain from beating her when ever he felt that she "needed it" for "her own good". Throughout the Middle Ages, where Luther recieved his cultural heritage, the predominant view among Christians was that women were inferior and should be ruled, and beaten if necessary, by their husbands. Catholic clergy even endorsed wife-beating as a means of discipline and in France the law gave the husband permission to beat his wife if she "had wronged him" (Whatever that means). Even in England, wife-beating was considered normal and the United States lasted all the way till the 1800s until wife-beating became a punishable crime. One man in the 1600s was actually released after being arraigned because he said he was beating his slave, who was his property (talking about his wife), which seemed reasonable enough for the judges.
We have a lot to thank the brave women who paved way for us and gave us a better future. I don't think we really think about it that way, do we?

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Why the Reformation didn't change the way the church viewed women was largely because Martin Luther had a negative view of them to begin with (most likely inherited from the church and the culture). One of his comments reads as follows: "Women must neither begin or complete anything without a man: Where he is, there she must be, and bend before him as before a master, whom she shall fear and to whom she shall be subject and obedient."
Houdeon wrote earlier how Katharina (Luther's wife) took care of the household, but I add that Martin didn't abstain from beating her when ever he felt that she "needed it" for "her own good". Throughout the Middle Ages, where Luther recieved his cultural heritage, the predominant view among Christians was that women were inferior and should be ruled, and beaten if necessary, by their husbands. Catholic clergy even endorsed wife-beating as a means of discipline and in France the law gave the husband permission to beat his wife if she "had wronged him" (Whatever that means). Even in England, wife-beating was considered normal and the United States lasted all the way till the 1800s until wife-beating became a punishable crime. One man in the 1600s was actually released after being arraigned because he said he was beating his slave, who was his property (talking about his wife), which seemed reasonable enough for the judges.
We have a lot to thank the brave women who paved way for us and gave us a better future. I don't think we really think about it that way, do we?

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

<font color="0000ff">"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."</font> (emphasis mine)

I've been thinking about Bob's comment that sees "I do not permit" as Paul's own preference, not universal or binding. On occasion Paul says, "I don't have a command from the Lord, but here is my judgment..." But surely this is not that. Here he states his policy, and grounds it on the order of creation. There is no sense that he is offering his opinion, saying "take-it-or-leave-it." As an apostle writing to his representative, this is authoritative.

The other thing I noticed, is that "I do not permit" conclusively rules out all theories that connect the prohibition of women elders to a limited and local condition, be it heretical women, under-educated women, or overly-boisterous women.

For Paul says, "I do not permit." This is his policy; this is how he establishes worship in every church he plants. When the apostle sets up public worship, he does not permit women to teach or have authority over men.

This is entirely different from saying, "Timothy, you have a problem there in Ephesus, here's what you have to do..."

Actually the whole chapter has a global, big-picture feel: holiness "pleases God", who wants "all" to be saved; Christ is a ransom for "all"; men "everywhere" should pray; certain conduct is appropriate for women who "worship God".

This chapter is about issues central to the Christian faith - holiness, one God, one Mediator, prayer, worship, redemption, creation. These are the things Christian worship is built on. 1Tim 2 has no hint that it is driven by transitory and local conditions.

Paul writes so Timothy will know "how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

And the apostle saying "I do not permit" clarifies that his instruction was not given to solve a local problem, but was his standard practice, to be taken as binding on all churches at all times until Christ returns.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

You didn't read what I wrote, did you John?

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

I did actually, but wanted to respond to something further up first. I had several reactions to your historical overview:

1. What are your primary sources for Luther beating his wife?

A short article entitled, "A Revolutionary Theology of Sex: Martin Luther on Sex, Marriage and Family - July 2, 2004", by Dr. Allan Carlson Ph.D. is here (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT04G01), and makes Luther sound downright egalitarian:

<font color="0000ff">In harmony with this, Luther also cast man and woman as fully equal in dignity and authority, with their marital union a true partnership of work, procreation, and child care. As he wrote in his commentary on Genesis:

"Whatever the husband has, this the wife has and possesses in its entirety. Their partnership involves not only their means but children, food, bed, and dwelling; their purposes, too, are the same. The result is that the husband differs from the wife in no other respect than in sex; otherwise the woman is altogether [as] man...[I]f the wife is honorable, virtuous, and pious, she shares in all the cares, endeavors, duties, and functions of her husband."</font>

2. I am always nervous to hear that the lights went off when the apostles died, and didn't come back on again until [fill in the blank]. It reminds me of JW's and Latter Day Saints.

3. Responsible complementarians would condemn oppression/unbiblical treatment of women.

4. Is Christian history as uniformly oppressive as Susanna asserts? I would suspect the story is more nuanced, but have to claim ignorance. I could scarcely do justice to the varieties, causes and implications of sexual attitudes that exist in my home town in 2006, let alone that existed in dozens of countries over two millennia.

5. But allowing that oppression was fostered by elements in the church, how does that influence our job today? Traditional notions of sexuality should not drive our theology, but neither should modern ones (though it would be a relief - our culture does not look kindly at Biblical gender roles). Ultimately, my concern is "What does the Bible say? What is God's intention for sexuality?"

I believe complementarity is faithful to the Bible and would bear good fruit in churches and in society.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

"Is Christian history as uniformly oppressive as Susanna asserts? "

The short answer, in my opinion is yes it is. The use and misuse of power throughout church history is well documented...from the small to the great, the church catholic was THE power and it weilded it politically...papal orders to assinate Elizabeth I, indulgencies, condemning women healers as witches so as to consolidate the healing power to the male dominated churches in the cities and villages etc.

As to a resource that states Luther beat Katherine...so far I have found no reference at all.

" But allowing that oppression was fostered by elements in the church, how does that influence our job today? Traditional notions of sexuality should not drive our theology, but neither should modern ones (though it would be a relief - our culture does not look kindly at Biblical gender roles). Ultimately, my concern is "What does the Bible say? What is God's intention for sexuality?"

This is THE question that seems to be the bone of contention in this discussion, isn't it.

I find the patriarchial gender role situation fraught with opportunities for abuses. Today, women are educated, capable of equality in the marketplace and more than capable of living life without the "covering" pf a man, be he father, brother or husband. I lived on my own for years before I was married. many women do.

I am not at all anti-marriage. I am antigender roles that put anyone in subordination to men. This causes many many abusive situations today just like it has throughout history.

Times have changed, and if God is indeed a living God, I do not believe his congress with humanity is dead. Therefore, the new context may require greater understanding of God's true nature, seen in a context that majes sense in our world.

Paul's exhortation to the men to keep their women silent is simply not releveant today. There are many other revelations of His character and love for both genders in the Bible that one can access that are applicable to today's world.

JMHO, John. I think you ask the best questions, BTW. They always challenge me and make me think, Thank you.

[cordell (cordell)]

I have studied the life of Martin Luther quite extensively, especially his marriage to Katarina Von Bora. I find the suggestion that he ever beat her to be offensive and just plain feminist and anachronistic bigotry. Martin Luther, with his understanding of the very LAW of the Ten Commandments (which YOU disavow because of your own antinomianism!) would see this as both murderous and adulterous--as would have any of the magisterial Reformers.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

I don't think the term "antinomianism" is valid, since I don't say that no law exists. What I believe is that we are under the Law of Christ, not the Law of Moses. It is as simple as that.

I'll look into the Luther-thing more in a few days, ok?

[cordell (cordell)]

If it is so simple, explain the difference between the two and validate your explanation with Scripture.

All Ten 'Words' of the Decalogue are reiterated and in fact strengthened in the NT. What you have just described is antinomian to the core--the thinking that the law of Moses (which is really not his, but God's Law) is different from the law of Christ.

Antinomianism does not say no law exists--it says that Christians are not bound to keep the Ten Commandments--which is just pure foolishness, let alone heretical.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Jim, in effect what you are saying is that the commandments innumerated by Moses for the Jews, are referenced by Christ in the New Testament, yes?

Does this explain what you are saying? Because if it does I am in total agreement...

http://www.thercg.org/articles/dtnttatc.html

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Actually antinomianism means "to be against or to oppose the law" (anti-to be against or to oppose; nomos-Greek for law). How does it mean only the Ten Commandments? Doesn't the law compromise of more than just a few verses?

Well, Jim, do you ever stoop down to pick up something between Sundown Friday and Sundown Saturday? Or do you ever cook or drive your car on the Sabbath? If you say that the OT law is still valid, then do you follow the law of the Sabbath as it is explained in the law?

Jim, I have already written about this a few times, but at your request, explain this one:

Heb 7:11-19
Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies:

"You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek."

18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

And how about these:

1 Cor 9:19-22
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;

Heb 10:8-9
Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

Heb 8:7
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

Heb 8:13
In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

And how about these:

1 Cor 9:19-22
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;

Heb 10:8-9
Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

Heb 8:7
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

Heb 8:13
In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Suzanna,
Could you tell me the name of your inn again?Thanks...
Patricia

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
The law apart from the Spirit is death.
If any one can keep the law(over three hundred in the OT)they are perfect and have no need of Christ's indwelling Spirit.

The law that is before us now is the law of Love.
Love does not violate it's own nature.1Cor.13.
The law of Love is the best law there is.
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

Dave

</font>}

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Hi Patricia,

It is Pinehurst Inn
www.pinehurstinn.us (http://www.pinehurstinn.us)
We are closed right now but we will be opening 1/20. (We are going to Costa Rica tomorrow, so you won't be finding me here for 10 days or so)

[ettuthomas (ettuthomas)]

Adam should have executed Eve

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Yeah, and then none of us would have been here. It would have been the end of humanity, right there. Good thought!!!

I was thinking today why the church considers the 50's to be such a glorious era in the history of humanity and then something hit me: it was the last era of the white man's rule. It was a time of suburbia and segregation; it was a time when the white man made the rules and others followed however reluctantly; it was a time when women stayed home and blacks were shuffled aside to obscurity or lynched. It wasn't a time of justice; it was a time of great injustice to humanity. It was a time when an embarrased president had to end the segregation of white and black soldiers because other statesmen were wondering how the US could call itself a democracy while violating humanrigths in such blatant manner. And yet our ministers want to return to it!
I know that this is a very simplistic approach, and I am not saying that I am right by no means. But after refreshing my memory about the civil rights movement today, I just can't understand how such a decade as the 50's would be considered a glorious one. Although it shouldn't surprise me considering that some all white churches opposed the emancipation of slaves and women's suffrage with vengage. Any comments?

[ettuthomas (ettuthomas)]

Sorry to upset you http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/sad.gif, sounds like you've had a really hard time of it

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

"2. I am always nervous to hear that the lights went off when the apostles died, and didn't come back on again until [fill in the blank]. It reminds me of JW's and Latter Day Saints."

John, I agree with Roberta that you ask good questions and I am thankful that you are here to balance this discussion.
The fact is that history is written by winners, not losers. Women's inferior position in the church has been challenged countless times, but we don't hear very much about it, since these brave souls have not been deemed very important in the eyes of those who have written history. Anne Hutchinson went against the conventional ideals while teaching both men and women. Her fate was banishment from her Colony in New England. There are countless of stories of brave men and women who have challenged the church's view, but who have not been succesful because challenging the church was in those days much like challenging the communistic dictators in these days. Anyone who dared faced excommunication and banishment from their tightly knit communities. No wonder then that most people simply held their ideas to themselves. You might enjoy "America's women, 400 years of dolls, drudges, helpmates and heroines" by Gail Collins. It opened my eyes to see that this is not a new issue, but a battle that has been fought ever since the church began.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

John, Personally, I think you're distorting Paul's words to make them fit the traditions that have been developed in Christianity and taught to you. When Jesus came, He appeared to be way out of the order of how God's thoughts were perceived by the 'church' of the time. I think we've accumulated a lot of man made doctrines along the way. The people that memorized and knew the Scriptures were the ones Jesus most irritated. They figured they had all that stuff down. They had traditional ways of perceiving what God meant by His words. The most apparent meaning of Paul using the word 'I' is the way I have stated it. You have to really work at it to come up with your rendition. Though I'm sure similar arguments are in print elsewhere.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Thanks for the kind comments. I always read them first (lol).

For me a walk through this entire topic would look like this: I believe in God. I believe God is good. I believe God revealed Himself in history as recorded in the Bible, and has kept the Bible free of error. I believe our purpose is to glorify and enjoy God. I believe God is glorified and enjoyed by honoring His intention for sexuality. I believe feminism has done some good, but that "gender-norming" efforts are ultimately a rejection of God's intention for sexuality.

I believe the Bible is crystal clear in teaching trans-cultural gender distinctions in family and church. The following informs my conclusion:

1. Adam's headship in creation
2. Headship language in the NT
3. Submission language in the NT
4. Gender-distinct church roles in the NT
5. NT gender distinctions explained by reference to non-cultural factors: creation, the Trinity, Christ's relationship to the church
6. The Biblical pattern of male leadership: Adam, Seth and his lineage, all the patriarchs, almost all the OT prophets, all the OT priests, all the writers of the NT, all the apostles and elders, and all the immediate successors to the apostles.

Most of these topics have been touched on briefly on this board, but an interested person should consult the plentiful scholarship that exists to make up his or her own mind.

I started with GG-style male dominance, drifted toward egalitarianism, but settled on "complementarianism" which avoids both extremes, deals with all relevant Bible passages without flinching, and answers all challenges from opponents.

As I have stated repeatedly: Biblical male leadership in no way implies ontological superiority, nor does it excuse domination. It also does not imply that women are less able to hear God, as was shown by Deborah, Mary, Elizabeth, Anna etc. Furthermore, Deborah (with help from Geena Davis in "Commander in Chief" lol) shows that women do not intrinsically lack leadership ability. None of this underlies Biblical male leadership.

The question is asked, "Cannot the patriarchal pattern be explained by the fall, an apostate church, and/or a sinful male desire for dominance?"

I would answer, sin explains male oppression, white lynching, the Holocaust, Rwanda. It does not explain healthy God-inspired Biblical male leadership.

Biblical leadership serves, sacrifices, protects, provides, strives for consensus, is considerate, honors others first, leads the way to Christ, models love and holiness.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

A question we have not asked in this discussion is "Why did God establish male leadership?" I believe the answer is found in the nature of the Trinity, in Whose likeness we were made. The first Person of the Trinity, the source, the first cause, is God the Father:

Jesus: <font color="0000ff">"When you pray, say, 'Our Father in heaven, may Your name be kept holy...'"</font>
Paul: <font color="0000ff">"For us, there is one God, the Father, of Whom are all things..."</font>

Jesus Christ was born a man, but was and is eternally the Son:

Paul: <font color="0000ff">"God sent His Son"</font>
The Father: <font color="0000ff">"This is My Son!"</font>

Christianity is in a sense the process of entering into the loving relationships that exist within the Godhead:

John: <font color="0000ff">"Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son."</font>
Jesus: <font color="0000ff">"...that all of them may be one, Father, just as You are in Me and I am in You."</font>
Paul: <font color="0000ff">"God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts Who calls out, Abba, Father."</font>

There is something uniquely "fatherly" about the Father. This is the pattern which God has built into creation:

Eph 3:14-15: <font color="0000ff">"I kneel before the Father, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth derives its name."</font>

A staggeringly beautiful picture is that some day the church will be presented to Christ as a bride to her bridegroom:

<font color="0000ff">"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery - but I speak concerning Christ and the church."</font>

<font color="0000ff">"The wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready."</font>

The question might be asked, "Isn't 'father' just a cultural frame of reference used to help us understand God?"

To which I would answer No, Christianity is a revealed religion. Healthy family relationships are a reflection of God, not the reverse. We were made in His image, not He in ours.

There is a movement to "redefine" the Christian God, using names such as "Parent", or "Mother-Father". But this is to create a new religion. God is sometimes described using feminine or maternal images, but His essence is Father.

And that is why this debate matters. I believe the church can and should, counter-culturally and without apology, hold our ground on this. Our understanding of sexuality should not primarily be informed by historical wrongs, by bad experiences in an abusive male-dominated sect, or by modern feminist ideology. For Christians, our theology - our God - should drive our understanding of sexuality.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Women in Ministry: A Sermon

Text: Romans 16: 1 - 27

Caller to American Christian radio talk show: 'What do you think of Philip's four daughters who prophesied?'

Guest clergyman: 'It just means they witnessed for Christ.' Caller: 'But why can't women teach and preach?' Clergyman: 'That ministry is for men only and I can give you a very good reason: God made roosters to crow and hens to lay eggs.'

Today we celebrate the calling and induction of .... into the pastoral ministry of this church.

In this 'charge' I want to look at one of the most controv- ersial questions in the church: the issue of women in leadership ministries - a contemporary issue for Australians, with the Anglican church agonizing about whether or not to ordain women priests. I will be presenting a point of view which I believe is correct, biblically, but I acknowledge there are other views (and no doubt your letters will help clarify those!).

This article is not addressing the issue of women in ministry. That's not in question: all Christian women and men are ordained to ministry at their baptism. The issue is one of women in ministries of leadership.

First, eight general observations; then we will look at the ministries of eight women named by Paul in Romans 12. [The full sermon concluded with four ideas about pastoral ministry: this ministry is about (1) disciplining the church's trouble-makers (Romans 16:17-18), (2) developing a Christian character (16:19-20), (3) building a Christian family (16:21-23), and (4) proclaiming the Christian gospel (16:25-27)].

(1) No one can read the Bible intelligently without taking into account the cultures which produced the various Scriptures, and the 'cultural baggage' we bring to their interpretation. Some say, 'You just simply read what's there!' but 20,800 different Christian denominations in the world today are each asking 'Be reasonable - interpret the Scriptures my way!'

A girl in a Christian sect told me God is like a giant man. He 'walks on the mountains' so they'd measured his size (with help from the geography of Palestine, and some trigonom- etry!). 'Does he have wings?' I asked. 'No, he's like a giant man.' 'But what about the Scriptures that tell us he hides us under his feathers, etc.?' She then had an attack of cognit- ive dissonance: her whole interpretive apparatus collapsed: she'd never thought of that!

Most who 'take the Bible literally' don't stone adulterers or practise footwashing, or enrol widows over sixty. Some read the Bible and become pacifists, others militarists. Our reading of the Bible is always conditioned by our exper- iences, our culture, our traditions.

Within our own culture many have inferred from the paucity of women in the highest levels of corporate management that 'women are not leaders and therefore shouldn't be'. However, others have noted the splendid work of women as pioneer missionaries, or leading whole denominations (like General Eva Burrows of the Salvation Army) and ask 'why not?' Because I am married to a female pastor, every day I share experiences of God using her to bless others, and that has helped shape my approach...

But, more importantly, I believe the Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from his holy Word.

(2) There seem to be two paradigms relative to male/female relationships in the Scriptures - a male-dominated patriarchical or hierarchical paradigm, and an egalitarian one. Both are there, and it generally depends on one's religious, cultural and psychological predispositions which paradigm one prefers. Or we align ourselves with the teaching of an admired pastor, or the church of our childhood, or a well-known author. We then interpret all the difficult texts to conform with that chosen paradigm. Generally, males have a tendency to lead; women are generally better than men at 'adapting' to others' leadership. (Notice I didn't use words like 'domination' or 'authoritarian'...)

But fortunately God is not a legalist. Even if male-dominated cultures produced the Scriptures, he raises up a Deborah to lead the whole people of God. Some of us wouldn't have let him do that... The four daughters of Philip were prophet- esses: can you name one or two in your church?

(3) Both males and females were created in the image of God. Roberta Hestenes writes: 'In Genesis 1 and 2 it seems clear that God's intention for man and woman is that of complementary partnership... and jointly given the charge to be fruitful, subdue the earth and have dominion... As a result of their sin the note of subordination is introduced (Genesis 3:16: 'Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.')... In Jesus Christ [we have a] priesthood of the whole people of God, female and male (1 Peter 2:9)... The church is built (Ephesians 2:20) upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Women are part of that foundation.' (1) Hierarchy results from the Fall, in which both the man and woman participated. But you say Eve was to be a 'helper' of Adam, implying inferiority. Not at all. The same word is used of God, helping Israel.

(4) Jesus, Paul and Peter were way ahead of their chauvin- istic cultures in granting personhood and dignity to women. Some rabbis debated as to whether women had souls! Women were there at the cradle of the Messiah, and at the cross and the resurrection. Women had never known a man like Jesus - he never put them down or flattered or patronized them. He had no uneasy male dignity to defend... 'Women itinerated with Jesus (Luke 8:13)... They were commissioned by him to tell the good news of the resurrection... (Luke 24:1-11). The double sexual standard for men and women was firmly rejected by Jesus (Matthew 5:27-28; 19:3-9; John 8:1-11). Not a trace of hierarchical behaviour or teaching appears in any of the gospel accounts.' (2)

(5) At Pentecost the Spirit fell on women and men: 'sons and daughters' both prophesied. In the apostolic church ministries were exercised according to giftedness, rather than 'office'. That system came later... The early church was more 'charismatic' and less institutional, more given to informal contacts than dependent on structures and constitutions. Prophecy is quite common in younger churches, and almost non-existent in older churches. Prophecy, says Paul, is the highest spiritual gift: and both men and women prophesied in the early church. (3)

(6) Brethren scholar F.F.Bruce suggests our understanding of male/female relationships must be viewed through the 'window' of Galatians 3:28: '[In Christ] there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus'. Although Jewish women did not need to attend worship and were certainly not permitted to participate vocally in it, Christian women participated freely in worship, prayer and prophecy (1 Corinthians 11:5, 14:6; Acts 21:9). 'In Christ' is a phrase that occurs 164 times in Paul - ie, 'within the Body of Christ' there is neither male or female.

(7) Evangelical Anglican scholar Dr. Leon Morris says of the Titus 2:5 injunction that women should be 'submissive to their husbands so that the word of God may not be discredited' that 'these days it would be brought into disrepute by a strict subjection. Again, women's subjection is to be such "as is fitting in the Lord" (Colossians 3:18). In a day like our own we must ask "What is fitting?" It seems impossible to empty such passages of cultural standards.' (4)

The apostles seemed to be putting their foot on the brake a little so as not to create a scandal by women blatantly abusing their new-found freedom in Christ. The early Christians were way ahead of their culture in their attitudes to women (eg Paul's radical injunction that husbands love their wives as Christ loved the church). But many churches today are way behind their culture - we are creating a scandal for the opposite reason.

(8) The main reason why there aren't more women in positions of leadership is, I believe, psychological. The little boy in us men can't cope with strong women: we left home to get away from maternal authority. Indeed, many men seem to have a near- pathological fear of losing power to a woman. Few men have women mentors. They usually don't read books by women. Men usually define themselves in terms of job success; women in terms of relationships. When I talk to male clergy they usually volunteer statistics which measure progress or growth. Women clergy tell stories about people...

Men and women bring different value-systems to the task of ministry: they are complementary if we are smart enough to maximize the potentials of each...

TEN WOMEN IN MINISTRY.

In Romans 16, we have people from at least three races - Latins, Jews, and Greeks, who are 'all one in Christ Jesus.' They are from lower and upper classes, including slaves and freed slaves - these, with people from the privileged groups are now all 'one in Christ Jesus.' Of the 29 people, ten are women. Apart from Priscilla, none is mentioned elsewhere in the NT. And Paul - who some think belittled the status of women in the church - honoured these women and held them in high regard. 'In spite of the lack of information on these women, it is reasonably certain that they must have had some importance in the Church to be included in this list of greetings.' (5) Paul also held the church in high regard: in these verses (1-16) Paul mentions the church at Cenchrea (1), all the churches of the Gentiles (4), the church in their house (5), the churches of Christ (16). Paul had a great concern for the welfare of individuals, and for the churches. The church of Jesus Christ is glorious, not because it's perfect, but because it is being redeemed!

The phrase 'In Christ' is mentioned ten times in the first 16 verses. Whether Paul talks about Christians suffering or serving, the supreme thought in Paul is that these believers in Rome were all 'in Christ' or 'in the Lord' (vv. 2,3,7,8, 9,10,11,13; cf. 8:1; Philippians 3:14; 4:13).

In the ancient world (as today) when someone is applying for a position or job they seek testimonials or references from others who know them well. In the Brethren Assemblies I grew up in we had 'letters of commendation' from one assembly to another if someone was traveling or moving residence. These sustatikai epistolai, letters of introduction, were common in business transactions in the ancient world as well.

So Paul is here commending Phoebe (16:1) to the church in Rome. She is the bearer of this letter. He asks them to welcome her.

Two terms describe her - diakonos - deacon, servant, minister, and prostatis - a great help to many people. Is diakonos a reference to a special 'order' of ministers? We don't know. The term is used generically in 1 Thess. 3:2, 2 Cor. 3:6, 11:23; of a specific group or function in Phil 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:8,12. And it is used of Christ (Romans 15:8), Apollos (1 Corinthians 3:5), Timothy (1 Timothy 4:6) and of Paul himself (1 Corinthians 3:5, Ephesians 3:7; Colossians 1:23,25). An evangelical NT scholar, E Earl Ellis, in an article 'Paul and his Co-Workers' (1971) concluded that diakonoa in Paul referred to a special class of co-workers who were active in preaching and teaching. (6)

She is also a prostatis - the only time in the NT this word as a noun appears. In secular Greek at that time this was a relatively strong term of leadership. The verb is used by Paul in three out of five occurrences to refer to leadership in the Church. Thus the word probably suggests Phoebe had a prominent role: one translator uses the word 'overseer'. And I still meet churches which won't have a woman on their diaconate!

Prisca and Aquila (16:3) were a fascinating couple. Prisca is sometimes called Priscilla (Acts 18:2,18,26) - an affectionate version of the same name.

When they first appear on the pages of the NT (Acts 18:1-2) they're in Rome. Claudius banished Jews from Rome in AD 52 and this couple settled in Corinth. They were tent-makers - the same trade as Paul's - so in Corinth he stayed with them. They and Paul left Corinth together and went to Ephesus where Prisca and Aquila settled (Acts 18:18). A brilliant Alexandrian scholar Apollos visited Ephesus, and stayed with Prisca and Aquila. Apollos did not have a full understanding of the Christian faith, so in addition to hospitality this special couple taught him as well (Acts 18:24-26). Later, when Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians from Ephesus, he sent greetings from Prisca and Aquila and from the church in their house (1 Corinthians 16:19). Next we hear of them back in Rome: the edict banishing Jews must have lost its steam, and many people like Prisca and Aquila no doubt drifted back to that city to their old homes and jobs. Once again we discover they have a church in their home. The last time they appear is in 2 Timothy 4:19, and they're back in Ephesus. One of the last messages Paul sent to anyone was to this couple, who had come through so much with him.

So wherever these nomadic people are - Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, back in Rome, or finally again in Ephesus - their home is a centre for Christian ministry, worship and hospitality (1 Cor. 16:19, Philemon 2).

But there's something odd about the way they're mentioned in despatches in the NT: they are always mentioned together, and on four of the six occasions Prisca is named before her husband. Normally - then as now - the husband's name is mentioned first - 'Mr. and Mrs.'. One theory suggested by (Presbyterian) William Barclay is that she was a member of a noble Roman family: 'It may be that at some meeting of Christians this great Roman lady met Aquila the humble Jewish tentmaker, that the two fell in love, that Christianity destroyed the barriers of race and rank and wealth and birth, and that these two, the Roman aristocrat and the Jewish artisan, were joined forever in Christian love and Christian service.' (7) Maybe. But perhaps it's more likely her leadership gifts or her role in the church was the reason she's mentioned first.

Paul calls them fellow-workers: the same term is used of men such as Timothy and Titus, as well as of women such as Euodia and Syntyche. 'He also considers Apollos and himself God's "fellow- workers" (1 Corinthians 3:9). It is in this group of people who take leadership in the ministry of the gospel that Priscilla, without any distinction related to her sex, is included as well as her husband Aquila.' (8) We don't know what roles all these people had as 'fellow-workers' - perhaps their roles were as diverse as their gifts.

Mary (16:6). There are at least six Marys in the NT story - and they are all special people. We don't know anything more about this Mary than that 'she has worked very hard' among them, a similar expression to that used of Tryphena and Tryphosa and Persdis (16:12). What kind of hard work? Did she grow flowers for Sunday services? Clean out the room before house-church? Serve eats after the worship? Perhaps - these so-called menial tasks are honoured when the Lord Christ is served. But the Greek verb 'work very hard' is used regularly by Paul to refer to the special work of the gospel ministry. Only twice does Paul use it in a common or secular sense - both within a proverbial expression (Ephesians 4:8, 2 Timothy 2:6). Paul frequently describes his apostolic ministry with this word, and also the ministry of other leaders and persons of authority: the context of some of these stresses the need for respect for and submission to such workers. [Cf. Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2,3) two women Paul describes as having '...contended at my side in the cause of the gospel' (NIV)].

Andronicus and Junia (16:7) were Christians before Paul was - their conversion goes right back to the time of Stephen, so they must have had a direct link back to the earliest church in Jerusalem.

There is some debate about the sex of Junia or Junias. Paul's word junian may be either masculine or feminine. So we have to be a bit tentative here. Andronicus was certainly a common male name, but there's no evidence Junias was used as a male name. John Chrysostom (d. AD 407), one of the first Greek fathers to write extensive commentaries on Paul, and known for his 'negative' view of women, understood that Junia was a woman. He marveled that this woman should be called an apostle! In fact... the first commentator to understand Junia as a male name (Aegidius of Rome) lived in the 13th century. (9)

He/she is outstanding among (en) the apostles: does this mean Junia was well known by the apostles or well known as an apostle? '[The] natural meaning in Greek is that these two were outstanding as apostles.' (10) The term 'apostle' was used in the early church not just for the Twelve but for any authorised Christian missionaries.

Were Tryphaena and Tryphosa (16:12) twin sisters? Their names mean 'dainty and delicate' but they worked (kopian) to the point of exhaustion! Barclay suggests Paul may have had a smile on his face when he wrote that!

The mother of Rufus (16:13) was one of two women mentioned specifically but not named. She brought to Paul the help and comfort and love which his own family refused him when he became a Christian. Julia and the sister of Nereus (16:15) were both greeted without comment.

Note that all these people were commended for their work: we are called to serve, not just to be church consumers! Note also the way Paul encourages people: when did we last do that?

Finally three scholarly comments. # 'Romans 16:1-16, then, in an incidental way, allows us to see that Paul had several women co- workers in the church's ministry. Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis (as well as Euodia and Syntyche mentioned in Philippians 4:2-3) all shared in the hard labours of a gospel ministry. Priscilla also was a fellow worker with Paul in the ministry. Phoebe was a minister of the Cenchrean church and a leader in the Church. Junia was, along with Andronicus (her husband?) an outstanding apostle. When the issues of Paul's view of women in the church are addressed in reference to such texts as 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:8-15, these women co-workers in the ministry must not only not be forgotten; they must be accounted for in the overall assessment of Paul's view.' (11)

# 'That Paul should not only include a woman among the apostles but actually describe her, together with Andronicus, as outstanding among them, is highly significant evidence (along with the importance he accords in this chapter to Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, the mother of Rufus, Julia and the sister of Nereus) of the falsity of the widespread and stubbornly persistent notion that Paul had a low view of women and something to which the Church as a whole has so far failed to pay proper attention.' (12)

# 'Just as the church has moved beyond the NT toleration of slavery to a recognition that Christian principles forbid slavery, so too we can with a good conscience accept a larger place for women in the ministry of the church than was possible in first- century society.' (13)

When I visited the largest church in the world in Seoul, Korea, in 1978, I was not surprised to learn that 80% of their small group leaders were women. I attended one of these, led very capably by a woman. The church is immeasur- ably impoverished when more than half its members are debarred from exercising leadership ministries not on the basis of the presence or absence of giftedness or competence, but simply because of gender. I thank God for the many women who have toiled so graciously for the Lord despite this discrimination. The time has now come to practise the principle that in Christ social, racial and sexual barriers have been removed.

Rowland Croucher

.....

Endnotes:

(1) 'Scripture and the Ministry of Women' in Roberta Hestenes and Lois Curley (eds.), Women and the Ministries of Christ, Pasadena, California: Fuller Theological Seminary, 1979, p.7

(2) Hestenes, ibid., pp. 7-8.

(3) See Avery Dulles, Models of the Church, New York: Doubleday, 1987, chapter 2, 'The Church as Institution'.

(4) 'The Ministry of Women', in Leon Morris, John Gaden, Barbara Thiering, A Woman's Place, Sydney, Anglican Information Office, 1976, p. 27.

(5) David M Scholer, 'Paul's Women Co-workers in the Ministry of the Church', Atlantic Baptist, 23:4, April 1987, p. 19.

(6) Ibid, p. 20.

(7) The Letter to the Romans, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1958, pp. 230-231).

(8) Scholer, p. 20.

(9) Ibid.

(10) Ibid.

(11) Scholer, op. cit., p. 21.

(12) C E B Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987, p. 377.

(13) I. Howard Marshall, 'The Role of Women in the Church', in Shirley Lees, (ed.), The Role of Women: Eight Prominent Christians debate today's issues, Leicester: IVP, 1984, p. 196.

[karen (karen)]

John,

There is always something compelling about your perspective because it is intelligent, seeks equilibrium, and anticipates the objections. Bottom line—you believe the Bible is free of cultural tampering. So what can or should anyone say? I deeply respect who you are and what you believe. That is not rhetoric, but a true expression of what I think about you. Still, I don’t agree with your conclusions. Sorry. Really… I’m sorry.

To assert that the Bible’s view of God as a male is based on revelation and not cultural norms can only be supported if the so-called revelation broke ranks with the status quo. But in fact, most cultures that pre-date revelation show continuity with respect to male domination/female subordination. Male dominance was not a revolutionary idea! If anything, there are glimpses in Scripture that go counter to the societal norms (i.e., Jesus’ attitude toward women and Paul’s declaration that in Christ there is neither male nor female). It is these breakthroughs that interest me.

I am not arguing for feminism or female domination, but equality. Why is this so threatening to men? Are men less than men if they don’t have an authoritative edge over women? Is a man who joins hands with a woman as an equal deprived of his manhood? I don’t think so. And in fact, I would say that such a man has not explored the depth of riches that such a liaison would provide. The Christian Right persistently upholds democracy as a God-given model of government for the world. Why not allow democracy to extend to marriage? Is the wife of a Christian man the only person who should be deprived of these rights? I can safely assert that you do not understand what you are asking women to give up in such a marriage. Do you dare to understand? For six months, reverse the order of authority and commit to the outcomes. Then I will debate this issue with you.

One final thought: What is arguably the one gift bestowed upon humanity that most mirrors the Divine? Is it not the ability to create life? Well, it takes a man AND a woman to do this. I think this is powerful evidence that God possesses both male and female attributes.

[boss_martian (boss_martian)]

Great posts, Roberta and Karen.

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">RJ: Jim, in effect what you are saying is that the commandments innumerated by Moses for the Jews, are referenced by Christ in the New Testament, yes?

Does this explain what you are saying? Because if it does I am in total agreement...</font>

Yep, pretty much. This says it as well:

<font color="ff0000">1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.

4. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

5. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.</font>

What our dear Susanna fails to comprehend, like most dispies, is that there are different kinds of law in the OT.

The ceremonial law was typical of Christ and was fulfilled by him in real and permanent sacrifice and obedience.

The civil law was given to the nation-state of Israel and is a ground and foundation for our own laws (ask your average lawyer about 'whose ox gores' etc. and see the origin).

The moral law, or the Ten Commandments are identical to the Law of Christ and the ¨the royal law according to the Scripture, You shall love your neighbor as yourself¨.

The moral law is in force and is binding on Christian believers, not to attain or achieve righteousness--but as a map for life.

The Ten Commandments serve three purposes:

As a map they guide the life.

As a muzzle they restrain sin.

As a mirror they reveal sinfulness.

All three purposes are still in force.


The religion in the Bible has always elevated women more than any other. The demonization of certain biblical words by radical feminists has not been helpful and incites rebellion against God, whom our sin nature is prone to hate anyway.

[cordell (cordell)]

This concerning the Sabbath:


<font color="0000ff">As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.</font>

While I am not in absolute agreement with the above statement, it is a fairly good understanding of the Sabbath by Reformed believers.

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">The Christian Right persistently upholds democracy as a God-given model of government for the world</font>

This is precisely the error of the so-called Christian Right.

The founding fathers did not conceive in their wildest imaginations a democracy but rather a Republic, with a form of government with three branches. This was not accidental as Rev. Witherspoon, a signer of the Constitution along with not just a few of his students was a Presbyterian, which denomination has a three court system of government. It was not surprising that the British labeled the American Revolution the 'Presbyterian Rebellion' saying that 'cousin America has run off with the Presbyterian parson.'

The Bible likewise does not perceive of the home or the church as democracies. Few types of church government are more inefficient than that of the congregational form which is much like a democracy, where the members are continually voting on every little thing down to the periwinkles on the teacups.

[cordell (cordell)]

BTW, greetings from sunny and lovely Puerto Vallarta, for those IP checkers.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

I would affirm most of Rowland Croucher's sermon posted by Roberta. Especially that Jesus and Paul treated women in a revolutionary and liberating way, fully reflecting redemption in Christ. Women were in the center of ministry, and were in no way marginalized or minimized. Paul applauded and honored these co-laborers; we should do no less today.

However...

Croucher's view that functional hierarchy was introduced by the fall has been discussed in some detail on this thread, and doesn't hold up.

Phoebe was prominent, a servant (possibly deaconess), helping, serving, matroness-ing the church, including Paul - clearly a sterling person. But the passage simply does not go further. The inference that she was a "leader of Paul" is unlikely.

Croucher admits that there is no scholarly consensus on whether Junia was a woman, or whether he/she was an apostle. He or she was outstanding and loyal, and more than that we don't know. But Croucher states:

"John Chrysostom (d. AD 407)...understood that Junia was a woman. He marveled that this woman should be called an apostle! In fact... the first commentator to understand Junia as a male name (Aegidius of Rome) lived in the 13th century."

Croucher's last assertion is simply false. Epiphanius (d. AD 403) described Junia as a man who became "Bishop of Apemeia". There is evidence that Origen (d. AD 252) viewed Junia as a man.

I apologize for appearing pedantic on this, but if critical thinking is appropriate for assessing GG, then it is appropriate for assessing egalitarians.

Noteworthy by their absence are the passages which - based on creation, Trinity, and Christ vis-a-vis the church - prescribe different functions for men and women.

Croucher states that one's view of these matters "generally depend on one's religious, cultural and psychological predispositions and which paradigm one prefers. Or we align ourselves with the teaching of an admired pastor, or the church of our childhood, or a well-known author. We then interpret all the difficult texts to conform with that chosen paradigm."

That is quite a charge. He denies that a person can approach the issue with an open mind, look at the evidence, consider both sides, and come to a principled conclusion (other than his).

[karen (karen)]

I cannot express the level of frustration I feel whenever I come to this site. It’s a mystery that I return at all. Most likely, it is because of the shared history I have with all of you regarding a significant, albeit ignominious chapter, of my life. However, that is where the sharing part of my life ends. I do not think like you. My experiences post-ministry are worlds apart from yours. All I can deduce is that we live in different worlds. How can you live by the Bible and function in the real world? My conclusion is that you live with cognitive dissonance, but are at peace with it.

Ironically, as I compare the two kinds of “Word” Christians I encounter here, I conclude that the most insufferable of them is most in sync with the literal interpretation of the Scriptures. For instance, the slavery issue—when I read the specific passages that address this topic, I would HAVE to conclude that God would have desired slaves to remain in their station of life. Of course, moral people with an active conscience cannot support this view, so they RATIONALIZE the Scriptures. They EXTRAPOLATE from specific passages to redemptive principles. And yes, I agree with their conclusions. But if I were a person who lived by every word of the Bible, I couldn’t reconcile those conclusions with what I read.

If you are honest and consistent and you believe slavery is wrong, you must apply the SAME thought process to women as you do slaves.

Be HONEST. Jesus did NOT live by EVERY WORD. In spite of the passages where He gives lip service to the Scriptures, such as this one—“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven…” (Matthew 5: 19)—Jesus constantly violated them. For instance—the woman caught in adultery. Jesus should have been the FIRST to stone her. Why do you think the Pharisees tore their clothing whenever He spoke to them? When I read the gospels, I see a person who is responding not so much to what is written as what He hears from the Spirit. Of course, Jesus did not come to provide us with a MODEL for living; NO—His words and actions have merely been recorded as the NEW Scripture. Same old, same old.

If I learned anything from being in the ministry, it is that I must attend to the VOICE of truth within me and NOT submit to external authority. Most of you have switched allegiance from Carl who claimed authority to a compilation of writings that claim authority. There is NOTHING different in the dynamics of how you live. Same old wineskins.

The Bible is filled with contradictions. I’ve read numerous responses that attempt to reconcile them. You know what? They are ridiculous. I find NO credibility in the arguments. I will not live in denial. If there is TRUTH in this world, then it must be tested and stand on its own merit.

Susanna, I am frustrated by you. You KNOW the truth about women, but you are willing to manipulate the Bible to support what is unsupportable, because you won’t face the truth about “what is written.”

I am through. I will no longer return to this wasteland. May God lead me to places of nourishment and LIFE.

[hodeuon (hodeuon)]

"when I read the specific passages that address this topic, I would HAVE to conclude that God would have desired slaves to remain in their station of life."

Sort of. "Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called." 1 Corinthians 7:20-24

Karen, we agree that Jesus would have women be free, would have slaves be free, and would have people living in peace rather than killing each other, right? Why do you think He didn't come right out and preach that during His earthly ministry?

Could it be because of His steadfast refusal to do what the disciples - and to be honest - most of the Jewish people wanted? To overthrow the corrupt system that was oppressing them? To be the mighty king who would crush the Romans? How much further would He take it? Free the slaves? Elevate women to equality with men? Does it stop there? What to do with those who collaborated with Rome? What about the rabbis who managed to teach most, but not all, of the Old Testament correctly? Where does the revolution stop? (Or as a former pastor of mine used to answer when someone asked why God let evil continue, do you want to eat dinner tonight?)

I think we also agree that God is all-powerful, right? And that He *could* have fixed everything by force during His first advent, right? Ok, sure, He could have put the kingdom off until right after the resurrection, like the apostles were thinking in Acts 1 - make it possible for everyone to be forgiven, and then...make them be forgiven?

Perhaps mercy demands delay on God's part.
Perhaps freedom demands delay on God's part.
And perhaps omnipotence demands delay on God's part.

That is, what I was trying to say above is we agree that in theory, God is powerful enough to have brought in His kingdom right then &amp; there, right? He is *able* to have done it. But God is omnipotent, not just really, really powerful. Is bringing in His rule by force the height of power? Or persuading His then-enemies (us) to *help Him start setting up the kingdom* really even more powerful?

Jesus could have ended slavery right then and there. But was a slave revolt what He was after? Dittos for women. Would everyone have just accepted it, or would have been a literal battle of the sexes?

I think we can throughout history that God moves gradually to reshape society. In the OT, an eye for an eye seems barbaric to us, but look at the standard of the times. God told Israel to *limit* themselves to an eye for an eye. Among the Canaanites, a murder was cause for a generational blood feud. Do you know that even in Iraq today, village leaders say they'll kill four of your people if you kill one of theirs? The Mosaic Law was...merciful by comparison.

Or look at slavery. Under the Mosaic Law, there were actually penalties for mistreated slaves in certain circumstances. Whereas outside Israel, a slave could pretty much be killed with impunity. By the time of 1 Corinthians, "remain in the calling in which you are called" - but get free if you can. In Philemon, Paul asks Philemon to treat Onesimus as more than a slave. About 1800 years later, it is *Christians* who change their societies so that slavery becomes unacceptable. Similarly with the status of women - they had few to no rights in Greek &amp; Roman society.

I have to go now, but the charge of cognitive dissonance can cut both ways.

Regarding the woman taken in adultery, it was a trap, yes? There is an attempt to make Jesus choose between the Mosaic Law which would put Him at odds with Rome (because Rome did not allow the Jews to carry out the death penalty themselves with one exception) or obedience to Rome which would undercut the Mosaic Law. Doesn't Jesus' response boil down to "Are you holy enough to keep God's law?" No, especially considering the situation itself was almost certainly a set-up in the first place. (How did the man get away?)

Really have to go. Will be happy to discuss more later.

Hodeuon

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Another point about Jesus not stoning the woman is that He is the exact expression in time of the Father; and the Father didn't have to give a command to have adulterers stoned. He could have just killed them Himself. But He doesn't usually do that. It also can be contended that Jesus was not the one who found her in adultery, and thus not the one that commandmant was applicable to.

Whoever's reading this thread, please pray for Karen. I don't think spiritual isolation is healthy. That doesn't necessarily mean that this is the best place for her to find 'communion' or fellowship; but hopefully she'll have it somewhere beyond her own walk in the Spirit.

One other thing comes to mind. Jesus said that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that IS PROCEEDING from the mouth of God. That indicates a living communion with Him in the Spirit, which is what Jesus had.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

From what I read of Karen's walk with God, I wouldn't say that her so-called solitaty journey is detremental to her at all. In fact, I would venture to say that those of us who do not fellowship in crowds may find some clarity and intimacy with God that was not before present in out lives.

Karen's obvious insights and wisdom speak in favor of her intimacy, willingness to hear from Him personally, and the care that she takes for her own soul.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Personal relationship with the Living God is a good thing and along with that is growing as a part of the body by fellowship with other beleivers.Being fittly framed together in Christ.

Obviously from what we know there must be care in not getting entangled with half truths and lies.

We do need each other though.A walk without having body input is a stunting experience.

</font>}

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Hi Roberta. I like Karen, and have tremendously enjoyed the type of issues and questions she has raised here. Above she wrote:

'I am through. I will no longer return to this wasteland. May God lead me to places of nourishment and LIFE.'

All I ask of you is that you pray that He does. That's what she wants. I just personally believe that involves other people, in addition to family, that are believers. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's something God wants for each of us. I don't think it has to be an institutional church or even necessarily physically gathering with others. I consider that you have fellowship with other believers even if you don't physically visit with them.

And maybe Karen does still have that elsewhere. I don't know. Her post just gave me the feeling that she's withdrawing from believers in general. I would be happy to hear from someone that that's a wrong impression. I'm not judging her. I'm seeking God for her good; and not on my terms.

[dinaweena (dinaweena)]

I think her statement referred to not returning to the wasteland that FN (and certain threads) has become. I don't believe for a second that she was talking about withdrawing from fellowshipping with others.
Hasn't much of so called "Christianity" become a wasteland of souls wrecked by misinterpretations and misinformation and misleading of men (women)? I think so....there really ISN'T a whole lot of LIFE out there. There's alot of law and opinions about who's better than whom, there's alot of 'my way or the highway/ you're so off', there's alot of hyperspirituality and smugness over one's own intellect all over the place, and not very much co-heiring/co-sonship going on. We call each other brothers in Christ and treat each other like garbage.....I think THAT is what Karen meant....she doesn't want to return to the trash heap.....she wants to KNOW Who she is in Christ, be Spirit taught, and be in mutual subjection to other Christ-persons (Christians) who have the same goal in mind as she....that goal being LIFE in Christ.

[louise_connolly (louise_connolly)]

We are all in trouble if this discussion board about exposing a cult we were once part of is a primary source of fellowship. My bet is that Karen is just fine in as she walks with God and the rest of the human race.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

"We do need each other though.A walk without having body input is a stunting experience"

I disagree. If God gives a person like me grace to be solitary in that I cannot/do not attend a 'local assembly' for fellowship, she gives in abundance. I was stunted and deprived of the spirit in every church I have ever attended, GGWO and others.

Fellowship can be had from many places, not simply a church or gathering of believers.

"Where two (or more) are gathered..."

FactNet is no better or worse than the real world beyond the computer screen. The negatives innumerated about FN can be and are found everywhere. One needs to be careful with whom one "fellowships" on and off line.

Karen has been oft times badly treated here for her views. I tend to agree with her in most every area, and admire her honesty, clarity, and confession. She enhances every conversation with her thought provoking perspectives, and I thank God for her. If she stays to post again or never comes back to FN I am a richer woman for her input and courage.

[the_one_post_wunderkind (the_one_post_wunderkind)]

Many, seem to live in the here and now and are so rightfully concerned about justice, mercy, liberty, fraternity and equality. Others, seem so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good.

I have often thought that Christ encourages us to 'remain in our station' (as Karen pointed out) because He wants us to be focused not just on the present but the eternal.

Talk to a person who is battling cancer or any other life threatening disease...in the present they are committing to the battle, crying for a Divine healing while simultaneously considering their calling home. I am humbled by their courage and faith.

Listen to the testimony of third world believers who rummage through the garbage dump for their next meal and thank God for their daily bread. Most of us whine about missing a meal or the taste, texture and tenderness of our steak. I am humbled by their positive attitude and gratitude.

What is my point? Perhaps, Christ is more concerned about our soul and self image then we realize. Make no mistake, I have no desire to be impoverished, or diagnosed with a life threatening disease, not to mention being enslaved.

However, what am I to do if I find myself in a tough situation that I did not ask for? And, what if I am powerless to change my situation? What are my options? Do I fold like a lawn chair in the wind? Do I wilt like a flower in a drought? Or, do I find hope and comfort in the Words of Christ?

Is the Word profitable for those who seem to get a raw deal in this lifetime? What hope does Christ offer for those who are not first in this life? Will the last be first and the first be last?

"Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called." 1 Corinthians 7:20-24

Christ is saying we are His and we heaven bound no matter what our condition is. In this, I see the unshakable hope of eternal justice, mercy, liberty, fraternity and equality- not made by human hands and selfish societies; but promises made by the work of God Himself. I am not ashamed to say that I find great comfort in this hope.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
""Where two (or more) are gathered..."
---
Yes two or more.It doesn't have to be in a church setting for certain,concidering the body is the church.

I do think we need each other.Iron sharpens iron.
It isn't good for "man" (mankind) to be alone as God has said.

I would think that Karen has many christian friends that she fellowships with in or out of a building and that hey are better for it too.

The best to all of you,
Dave

</font>}

[dinaweena (dinaweena)]

Henry W. Longfellow

If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each person's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Yes Dina,
compassion and understanding are great gifts.
Gifts of the heart.

</font>}}}

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

"Phoebe was prominent, a servant (possibly deaconess), helping, serving, matroness-ing the church, including Paul - clearly a sterling person. But the passage simply does not go further. The inference that she was a "leader of Paul" is unlikely."

John, she wasn't possibly a deaconess, she was a deaconess, since the word is "diakonos" in a feminine form and there are plenty of references to deaconesses in the early church. Their position was changed as the church moved towards a hierarchy that exluded women.

God is not eclusively a patriarc, he is also maternal:

Isa 66:13
As one whom his mother comforts,
So I will comfort you;
And you shall be comforted in Jerusalem."

The imagery of God being a mother as well as a father vanished as the church moved towards being exlusively male.

Have you ever thought where we get our ideas that relate to women? Did you know that they come mostly from Greek mythology and philosophy (such as the creation of Pandora (where we find the word helpmeet, found also in KJV; the box she opened which introduced all evils into the world, which is directly translated into Eve and the fruit she took, making her the only one to be blamed for sin; the infidelity of one goddess caused all women to be considered as sinful despite the fact that some godesses (and most women are) were chaste.) Judaism (where we get the idea that women are abnormal and male the norm, that women should be carefully governed lest they cause the whole society to fall into pieces), Romanism (where we get our idea of absolute female submission) and contemporary culture (that women should be home and take care of the kids)

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

Do any of you women recall this feeling?

http://liquidwaves.blogspot.com/2006/01/sorry-girls-carl-has-left-building.html

[onshore (onshore)]

Too funny!
How about all the clicking of the 4" heels on the tiled floor entrance way? You know... all the B Baum wanna be's that scurried after him. Then, embarrassed and alone, they were left standing in the parking lot, only to inhale his Lincoln exhaust and hope for another chance at the next service.

And thinking back, most of them were married.

Ahhhh...the insanity and the absurdity of it all! How this very unattractive, country bumpkin in a pale blue 100% polyester leisure suit, attracted gorgeous women, is beyond comprehension.

If I remember correctly, one woman wrote that she would like to drink his bath water. (That might have been the same woman who would mail him a McDonald's apple pie in an envelope along with her donation.)

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

drink his bath water??????????

OMG, I'm gonna hurl....

[yer_awesome_pahsta (yer_awesome_pahsta)]

hmm? carls bath water, or eating at mcdonalds? that's a tough call! i'm leaning towards carls bath water...either or, both is like eating out of an open sewer!

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

BEST BATHWATER LINK EVER!

http://www.bestprices.com/cgi-bin/vlink/706393000121BT.html

Check it out for a laugh people!

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

hahahha, well i couldn't leave it alone! check out the new "drinking pastah's bathwater" extravaganza on the liquid waves website!

http://liquidwaves.blogspot.com/2006/01/drinkin-pahstahs-bathwater.html

[onshore (onshore)]

OMG...I have tears; I have stomach pain from laughing. Roberta...Maybe we should bottle it and call it "Carl's Bath Water in a Bottle".
You know... Have him on the label jumping into the tub holding his yellow ducky.

The Promo could be: "Keep it in the medicine cabinet in case you drink poison and need to "Hurl" in a hurry."
Yer Awesome...too funny. (You really think eating at McDonalds is like eating out of an open sewer???) I’ll have to keep that image in my mind the next time I feel like having a Big Mac and can’t afford the calories!

Now, I must go and Drink deeply at the Bath Water Link.
I'll be right back.
I'm still cracking up...

[onshore (onshore)]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Youre-So-Fine-Id-Drink-a-Tub-of-Your-Bathwater-O_W0QQitemZ4585598447QQcategoryZ378QQssPageNameZWD 1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Hey...now I can even shop on Ebay and vomit too.

[onshore (onshore)]

Hey... Notouchlove,
Did you DELETE something? ? ?

It must have been pretty wild and whacky if YOU felt compelled to delete.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

I'm gonna hurl....AGAIN

[onshore (onshore)]

RJ, I know...just the thought of the possibilities, is endless!

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

I've heard that Christianity supposedly elevated women, but most scholars agree that women have had less freedom and dignity under the Christian era, than under the Classic Greek and Roman societies and Antiquity. How come?

[dontchugthekoolaid (dontchugthekoolaid)]

Maryjoe Cannon probably said she would drink Carl's bath water since she was up his <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> after every service chasing him down keeping all females away from him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">I've heard that Christianity supposedly elevated women, but most scholars agree that women have had less freedom and dignity under the Christian era, than under the Classic Greek and Roman societies and Antiquity. How come?</font>

Oh Geez, what a crock.

<font color="0000ff">I've heard that Christianity supposedly elevated women...</font>

Key word supposedly...but really, elevated them from what? And if Christianity is the true faith once delivered to the saints from the one true God, what's your beef? And you heard? From whom?

<font color="0000ff">but most scholars agree that women have had less freedom and dignity under the Christian era...blablabla</font>

Wow. Most scholars...well that settles it. The academia have decided therefore it must absolutely be so. Who are these most scholars? Can we name a few? Better yet, is there a list, seeing how MOST of them agree?

<font color="0000ff">How come?</font>

How come what? How come 'most scholars' in your mind agree? How come women have had 'less freedom'? What do you define as 'freedom'? Prove it.

Susanna this is a straw man waiting to be not only pushed over but set on fire.

Business slow at the inn?


This thread still looks like the sign on the john.

Maybe we can get one of those little symbols for it.

[louise_connolly (louise_connolly)]

Boredell, maybe we can let the thread die. Is it your job in TX to beat all of the dead horses or just on Factnet?

[cordell (cordell)]

Weez, go join dizzabella at the shopping cart hags convention.

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Well Jim, I thought this would be a comment you wouldn't be able to pass in silence.
And no we aren't slow at all, we are busier than ever and made more money tonight than most do in a month. I just like hanging out here once in a while as a means to relax. I didn't know I had had to have a permission from you (and some of the other men here at FN).

It is a fact that the church keeps on saying that the Jesus came to elevate women from their degradation (it has been mentioned here as well)and it is also a fact that under Christianity women have lacked the same prestige as they did in the B.C. years. If you think otherwise, prove it.

[guess_who_is_coming_to_dinner (guess_who_is_coming_to_dinner)]

Ode To Susanna From Finland

Well I come from Finland with my crappy Finnish attitude on my knee
And I’m bound for the West Coast, my own true love for money see
America is the place I left my country behind!
It did snow all night the day I left
The weather was bone dry
The sun was so hot I froze myself
Susanna, don’t you go on and cry

I said, oh, Susanna
Now, don’t you cry for me
As I come from Finland with this crappy Finnish attitude on my knee

Well I had myself a dream the other night
When everything was still
I dreamed that I saw my church run by ol Susanna
She was coming around the hill
Now, the bible was in her hand
A tear was in her eye
And she foamed out, ‘the men they make me cry’

I said, that I come from Finland
Suzanna, don’t you break down and cry
I follow you to the ends of the earth
Because you make sense just like Amy Simple McPherson &amp; Joyce Meyers the great women preachers they are!

I said, oh, Susanna
Now, don’t you cry for equality!
’cause I come from Finland with this crappy Finnish attitude on my knee

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Sorry my friend I came from Sweden, not Finland, I don't want to be a preacher and I don't love money. I am honored thought that you devoted that much time just for me... you must really love me! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Hey Jimmy boy! Did you complain to FN about me, since my IP number is banned?! I found another way through so here I am anyways (but not tomorrow, I assume, since FN is probably going to bann my username as well after this). This just proves my point: you can't challenge these guys, for when you do, and they lose the debate, they get all mad and make sure that you won't get another chance to show how wrong they are.
I've had fun, but it's time to go (and find another board where there is no Jim to make my life sour with his antagonistic and pitiful attitude towards women).
Jim, you got what you wanted, the board is all yours. Enjoy!

del@pinehurstinn.us

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Oh, sorry, I just realized that you said that you came from Finland, not me. I'm not sure anymore what you meant, but who cares, it is not important. Such songs as yours are just too pitiful to be considered seriously.

[whatsup (whatsup)]

Susanna, get over yourself.......no one is that impressed with you to go to the trouble of trying to ban you, although you are annoying as hell.....many of us have had trouble logging on here but we dont assume its some kind of plot....good luck in your search for another board to inflict your pathetic ramblings on

[cordell (cordell)]

Susanna, I have never complained about anyone on FN. I believe in free speech. You are the last person I would want banned from FN. One reason for that is you're such a bloody easy target (makes me ashamed of myself sometimes).

I think you're confused, intransigent, boneheaded, unteachable, boring, incomprehendable, a rabid feminist and just plain wrong--but you (and dizzabellalugosisillycow and the poison Irish dwarf wheezer) have a perfect right (as far as I'm concerned) to be on FN and post as you please--and your Scandinavian background just plain makes you apparently stoically humorless. But I loved Victor Borge, even when I was little (imagine me making one of his famous raspberry noises at you). Life's like sandpaper sometimes hon', just don't wipe yer backside with it.

(Message edited by cordell on January 29, 2006)

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

i love scandinavians, like norwegian painter odd nerdrum:

http://www.nerdrum.com/

otp

[cordell (cordell)]

If you like him you'll love Lucian Freud (http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/freud/)--guess who his grand-daddy was--then you begin to understand...

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

And you are not an easy target yourself, Jim? Anyone here needs to only mention something you don't like and you are like a dragon breathing out fire. And yes, you should be ashamed of yourselfy a bit more often than just sometimes. It'll do you good.

Whatsup, I really couldn't give a sh-- about what you think since you only post insults while hiding behind a user name. I don't think "ID banned", means difficulty logging on, it means that I am not supposed to be here right now. That is if I use AOL to get here, Internet explorer works still just fine since I get a new IP # every time I log on. Perhaps they will delete this message, I think they already have done it to my other posts.

[whatsup (whatsup)]

OH if only that were true....do stop teasing us with all these false hopes Susanna

[cordell (cordell)]

Whatsup, come over here and join me in the "You need to be more humble" room so that we can be more like Susanna.

(I just had this horrible vision of this Scandinavian chick dressed up in dominatrix black leather with a whip screaming "Be more humble"...)

(Message edited by cordell on January 30, 2006)

[whatsup (whatsup)]

is she in the pulpit with her bible in your vision

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Susanna,

I truly enjoyed our discussion. We disagree strongly about the subject, but were able to stick to the issues without stooping to nastiness and mockery. It was a refreshing change from the destroy-your-opponent-at-all-costs mentality that we remember from TBS/GG.

Whether you stay or go, I wish you the best.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Susanna

Please will you simply ignore these two and continue to post what you are learning about women preachers? I very much enjoyed your posts, and have missed them.

These people are simply baiting you and successfully dragging you away from the top[ic so as to nullify your impact.

Please ignore them, for they are simply trying by their buffoonery to stop the conversation. They are not worth the effort, they are less than worthy of notice when engage in such childish behaviour and you can afford to forget them.

Please....will you again post what you have been studying and ignore these foolish posts by fools?

Thanks

Roberta

[cordell (cordell)]

Two more tickets to the shopping cart convention please.

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">I've heard that Christianity supposedly elevated women, but most scholars agree that women have had less freedom and dignity under the Christian era, than under the Classic Greek and Roman societies and Antiquity. How come?</font>

This is, of course NOT baiting because a feminist is putting forward what she is learning about women preachers and it is of course sticking to the issues without stooping to the nastiness, etc...as was the comment about Luther and wife. No. No nastiness there at all, no revisionism there! No boneheaded unreasonableness there.


Sometimes you libs and baptist fundies are just beyond amazing.

[hadasa (hadasa)]

post change

no ones blocking IP's; just trying to put people at ease with a lil comedy; but it might be a little smart alec-nish

(Message edited by hadasa on January 30, 2006)

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

"Sometimes you libs and baptist fundies are just beyond amazing."

And sometimes you are an idotic jerk who just loves being like Carl in putting people down...and in so doing you negate whatever positive message you "might" put forth. I thought you left the cult...sometimes it doesn't seem like you really have at all, Jim. Pains me to say it, but it makes no sense to be so much like the worst preacher we all know if you want people to listen to you.

Or maybe you don't care...maybe you're just really addicted to being pompous, "right" and mean. I try so hard to understand you because I love you, but I cannot, and it is painful.

I wish you could see the harm you do in the name of Christ.

[hadasa (hadasa)]

"Or maybe you don't care...maybe you're just really addicted to being pompous, "right" and mean."


To be fair, I don't think Jim's the only one whose gone that route.

(Message edited by hadasa on January 30, 2006)

[susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)]

Jim, did I ever mention that I am a baptized and confirmed Lutheran and that I remaind one until the Lutheran church in Finland began to compromise in order to "fit in"? I respect Luther greatly for his courage to stand up against the tyranny of the doctrinal errors of his days, and I am greatful for the reformation he began, but I am not going to be blind to his weaknesses as a human being. God thought it fit to mention the flaws of the people in the Bible, and I think it is healthy to do so. That way no one seems to be perfect and above repentance, but we can all be what we truly are: sinners saved by grace, by God's mercy and His love alone.

Roberta, as much as I would wish to continue this discussion, I think I better not. Jim is draining me with his anti-christ like behavior right now, so I am just going to let him have his way. Maybe later, eh?

[whatsup (whatsup)]

or maybe you just don't have an answer to his arguments? what an obvious cop out

[cordell (cordell)]

You still have not correctly cited the book, so I can at least investigate the veracity of it.

I don't deny that Luther had his flaws and that his biographers have mentioned them. He suffered from depression, etc. I have read a plethora of books on Luther's life and Katharina Von Bora's--not one of them so far have mentioned any spousal abuse of one on the other--even though many other faults of both are mentioned.

You just have not proved it other than to throw up your inadequate 'ibid.' quotation.

(Ibid (Latin, short for "ibidem," "the same place") is the term used to provide an endnote or footnote citation or reference for a source that was cited in the last endnote or footnote.)

[cordell (cordell)]

For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

I am sorry to hear you cannot continue, Susanna, but I do fully understand why. I have stopped expressing opinions and any spiritual learning with Jim around as well...he is a cute little boy bully in the school yard who simply cannot allow anyone else "best" him, which he seems to think we are all doing if we disagree. He tears at everyone's stance be they male or female.

I care about Jum very much. He has been a dear friend to me when I have been at my weakest and most spiritually vulnerable, and I love his heart. But when it comes to dissecting the Bible, or discussing doctrine he is a pit bull that cannot be tamed or lived with. *LOL* So, it is best to just let him have the floor, as you say, and escape to discuss such things elsewhere.

I hope at some point your discussion of women in the pulpit will find a place to be discussed without being attacked for I did enjoy your posts.

In Him
Roberta

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Hadasa,"To be fair, I don't think Jim's the only one whose gone that route."
---
That's for sure.

</font>}

[susanna_krizo]

Roberta, "a woman in the pulpit", I found it, send an e-mail, and I'll give the details.

[rjfernalld]

My email

srfern@verizon.net

[susanna_krizo]

John, I have a question for you:
If the foundation of a doctrine is Greek philosophy, should it be rejected?

[whatsup]

John, I have a question too:
If a man speaks in the forest and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?

[cordell]

Here, fishy fishy fishy!

Come on out little fishy!

Is it possible to have a platonic relationship that logically aristotelian and socratically interactive?

Waddya think, Cicero?

[susanna_krizo]

I didn't know you had changed your name?
To air opinions without invitation seems to be the only thing you are good at. In everything else the ignorance you display is just laughable. Cicero? Give me a break.

[cordell]

As usual ohsusanna, you have the sense of humor of half a stalk of celery and the same amount of brainpower. As for airing opinions, this is factnet and I don't need a bloody invitation--it's a forum. You want a little private chat?--use email instead of posting here where everyone can read your senseless drivel. You actually thought I didn't know Cicero was a Roman? sillymoo.

[susanna_krizo]

Anyone who has even the most elementary form of education knows who Cicero is, and my point was that he has nothing to do with the influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity. Of course you weren't able to resist doing some namedropping to show that you know at least three writers from the calssical antiquity (Socrates never wrote anything down). Oh, and rest assured, I know this is a public forum, and BTW, since it is one, what are you whining about?

[cordell]

You, in your original question--in your inimitable obtuse manner--did not distinguish whether the doctrine was a Christian doctrine, a social doctrine, a political doctrine or whatever-- you said:

<font color="0000ff">If the foundation of a doctrine is Greek philosophy, should it be rejected?</font>

It is a question which begs a 'yes' or 'no' answer and does not 'invite' anyone to discuss it at all.

How do you know Socrates never wrote anything down? Are you psychic? Were you there watching?

[gone_to_pa]

Who in God's green earth is Cicero? I magin that homskoolin nevr dids me no good affer al, ya'll. isem he a doctrain?

ya'll come bak now heer
Jethro/ GTP

[cordell]

Tom, Cicero is that guy who gave ohsusanna her last broomstick and she got too many splinters in her ...

[redsnapper]

I thought Cicero was a mythical god of the Italian Tobacco industry.

(Message edited by REDSNAPPER on April 09, 2006)

[cordell]

I concede to the redsnapper of greater knowledge.

[susanna_krizo]

"Socrates himself, of course, was not a writer at all but engaged in philosophy only orally, in face-to-face question-and-answer discussions."
Plato, complete works, Introduction, p. xviii

One does not have to be psychic, if one knows how to read

Oh, and you might benefit from comparing Plato's Symposium and Aristotle's Politics with Clement of Alexandria and Chrysostom. That will give you the answer to your own question.

Cicero: a Roman statesman, a contemporary of Julius Caesar, killed by Anthony's men, by the order of Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. Cicero left a large amount of written text behind him, which have been preserved to our time. Most of it is political since for Cicero, politics was the most important issue, as for any other good Roman from the upper classes.

[susanna_krizo]

BTW, only you Jim would ask what the word 'doctrine' refers to. Anyone with even the most modest ability to think would connect the discussion with the Bible since we are all Christians (or claim to be at least). I guess I have overestimated your ability to think. Perhaps I am getting too deep here (i.e. over your head)?

[susanna_krizo]

BTW, only you Jim would ask what the word 'doctrine' refers to. Anyone with even the most modest ability to think would connect the discussion with the Bible since we are all Christians (or claim to be at least). I guess I have overestimated your ability to think. Perhaps the discussion is getting too deep here (i.e. over your head)?

[cordell]

ohsusanna, anything to wind your stiff self up will do for me. Have fun on your broom.

If you were a man, I'd think you'd want to be in a pee-ing contest...

FN does not like the word that rhymes with 'Miss' as in Miss Nomer.

[cordell]

OH and JOHNNY...Ohsusanna wants you to come on out and reject a big bad doctrine.

[susanna_krizo]

As ususal, Jim has nothing better to say when he loses the argument... it is becoming quite the norm here isn't it? You see, anyone, even a woman (gasp!!) can win an argument against an ignoramus. Perhaps you should spend some time studying, then you would have something real to say, instead of your meaningless postings that say pretty much nothing.

[cordell]

Poor ohsusanna. You're the only one arguing here, sugar. Every other post after your first one is there for the sole purpose of yanking your silly chain.

[susanna_krizo]

Like I wouldn't know that...
Which of course proves my point: you have nothing to come with but because you cannot keep your fingers away from the keyboard, you just have to write something. If you actually had something to say, you would have written it many days ago, since I don't think you are a good loser.

[susanna_krizo]

It has actually become some sort of a hobby of mine in the midst of the heavy Oregon rains to find out what insults you can come up with. I don't know anyone who writes such text as you do, except a friend from Denmark who loves sarcastic humor just as much as I do since I've lived there, although he is never mean on purpose which I wouldn't put behind you. So, even though you may find that I don't have a sense of humor, I just have to conclude that it takes one to know one.