SHOULD A WOMAN PREACH

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
For a long time I have believed that a woman should never be in the position to preach.
I have had to rethink this because of ministers teaching the Word with a stronger balance.

There are two verses in the new Testament that prohibit a woman from teaching/preaching to a man.
Do we build a consensus on two verses?
I would have to say "no."

I have come upon an article by Frank Viola that brings a good perspective to this shaky debate.
After having read it,I have had to reconsider my position on this issue.Seriously reconsider it.

There are several exsamples of differant women who taught in the new Testament.Piscilla and Aquilla are but two.More are presented in Franks article.
With that said,I place a link to this article for your consideration.
We may be shortsheeting God's work by not taking into concideration the place that women hold as joint heirs with Jesus and members in particular in the body of Christ.
So,for your concideration here is the link.
http://ptmin.org/role.htm

We need to take this subject into a balanced view from the perspective of the whole council of God.Not from just two verses that have been used to bolster a mans position as superior.

Women have much to offer in the ministering of the Word and we should not deprive them of their portion in His body.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Dave
</font>}

[turtle (turtle)]

would you dave listen to a woman preach in your church though? Or do you feel woman as aminister is different then men in ministry?http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[boss_martian (boss_martian)]

Great post, Dave. Personally, I have learned more about TRUE grace (living it, rather than talking about it) from the women in my life than from men.

One of the major issues I have with GGWO is their treatment of women. Women are a blessing, not "property" or a "trophy".

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica">
Turtle,
in the past I would have said no.However,after concideration of this from a more balanced view,taking the whole council of God's Word and having read the article put forth by Frank Viola,I would without being intimidated,listen to a woman share what the Lord has given her.

After all,women are members of the same body that men are,which is Christ.
How then,can a woman be inferior to the oneness of Christ in us that is the same in man as in women?
There is not a body of women and a body of men in Christ,only a body of believers that have the same Christ.Christ is one and is not divided.


Dave
</font></font>

[turtle (turtle)]

God has brought you a long way Dave. The truth is we learn something new everyday when we read and study God's word and it changes our hearts and mind.

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

i think stevens was ok with women ministering...

in the right way...

http://liquidwaves.blogspot.com/2005/11/womens-ministry.html

[jayso (jayso)]

Hi, I don't know enough to weigh in on this question. Suffice it to say that women have come a long way over the years since the first century. I've heard "women preachers" who can out-preach men! Why not, if they have the education and the ability? Women are not dumb!

Didn't we all have women teachers in school? Oh, you may say "That was when I was a child". Well, how about in college or university? You were a MAN then, yet you submitted to a "woman" teacher? Tisk tisk - all you fundies!

It is possible that God's order in the church calls for "men" to be pastors and teachers; presenting God's authority over other men. The scriptures are fairly clear on that point. Just as a father can not be a woman, nor a mother be a man. Different roles, but totally dependent on one another. No father, no mother ... vice versa.

I believe even if it is not God's perfect plan for the church to have a woman pastor,

<font color="ff0000">THERE SHOULD DEFINITELY be a WOMAN as the CHIEF ELDER AND HEAD PASTOR OF GGWO! </font><font color="000000">

Also, that woman should be a MOTHER. Only then will the SINister practice of covering up for those who injure children be halted.

So, I guess that although I have always been taught to believe women should NOT be pastors, I have to make an exception for GGWO.

Only a woman who is a caring mother shall certainly stand up against the "covering" of evil men who physically and sexually abuse children. A mother's love is what is needed at GGWO.

The men of GGWO seem to have failed miserably to protect God's precious children!

That is my opinion. </font>

[lmbles (lmbles)]

May I put in my two cents on this subject?

This is not a question of a female's worth or competance. This is a matter of the different roles of men and women that were designed in creation. Teaching and having authority over a man defies the biblical principle of headship and honor. While it is true that this idea has been abused in the past, we ought not to choose our positions based how far people have come from God's original plan. If we follow God's way (and don't add our own twists based on our presuppositions) it really is a freeing thing to understand the intended roles in marriage.

A great book to read on the subject is John Piper - Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

[rightorwrong (rightorwrong)]

women would not have to preach if enough men would stand up and get the guts to preach.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
I don't consider it a matter of displaced authority if a woman preaches/teaches a man when the woman has a covering.
It may be that the two verses in the new Testament where dealing with women who where being disruptive at the time.(I have heard this put forth by several ministers)

Why,if a woman has a balanced view from the Word,should she be considered less qualified than a man is.

Mary brought the message that she was bringing the Messiah to birth.Mary Magdaline brought the message that Christ was risen.There are several exsamples of women who taught in the new testament and they where not rebuked by Paul for doing so.
There is more to support this than there is forbidding it.
There are women I wouldn't listen to if they where the last people to preach in the whole world and there are men I wouldn't listen to if they paid me all the money in the world.

I don't think it's a gender issue at all.
I see it as more of a Spiritual maturity issue.

I hope some of you read the article.It is very enlightening.
http://ptmin.org/role.htm

Dave

</font>}

[bonniescott (bonniescott)]

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
- Marianne Williamson

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Love that bonnie...never could figure out the Christians who apologise for taking up space on the planet as if everything about themselves was a mistake to be repented of...very perverted sense of humility..and yet I did it myself for years.
Now, I marvel at the creativity in the world, the achievements of individuals...I often think look how wonderfully we have been made and then it awes me that God is infinitely greater but He never loathes us for using our gifts and talents and reaching for the sky.
We put God in a little box with these 'mentalities' that originate in some finite concept of love. Nothing separates us from Love.

(Message edited by Sojourner on November 15, 2005)

[jeannie (jeannie)]

I do not serve the world by false humility. I serve the world most by humbly accepting that God uses me, because God uses everyone and everything to serve the process of healing. We are constantly offered the gifts we most need to receive. The way to receive our gifts is to give our gifts, and that we cannot do if we are always questioning their value.
- Marianne Williamson

[lee (lee)]

I think women 'preach' all the time. We just don't get the position, prestige or paycheck.

[jeannie (jeannie)]

And I, for one, do not want the position, the prestige or the paycheck. Just give me a needle and thread and quietly go about mending. Peter Pan may have been able to fly, but it was Tinkerbell who sprinkled the fairy dust and Wendy who sewed him back together. It is the bonds of strong friendship with other women which hold me together. (and yes, a few guys who really "get it")

[lee (lee)]

yeah, Jeannie!!!!

[aurora (aurora)]

Love it, ladies!

Is that the Marianne Williamson Oprah used to have on her show? If so, isn't she "new age"? I always diregarded her because of that. humm..maybe I should rethink that decision....

[lmbles (lmbles)]

Yes, I have read the article. I've really enjoyed Frank Viola's books in the past (Rethinking the Wineskin, etc) regarding the origin of the pastor and how the church should gather. I'd highly recommend his books and articles to many people.

However, I found myself somewhat torn about this one that you recommended, Dave. He definitely made some excellent points, and certainly has some compelling arguments. But I think it leaves much wanting, and in some areas he follows the same faulty logic as many feminists and liberals have done for years.

If I could perhaps give some brief thoughts on it? I'm not a theologian, and in no way want to start a debate, but this is a topic I've been studying now for a while, earnestly trying not to be influenced by my presuppositions and honestly asking God to reveal his truth to me. It may also help for people to know that I am a woman, not a male chauvinist with ulterior motives. Just thought I'd clarify that. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

A few points I'd like to make, in specific.

Galatians 3:28 was GROSSLY taken out of context. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." The context here is regarding justification in Christ by FAITH rather than STATUS. There are no longer any barriers to Christ. This passage did not have social implications, otherwise there would be no more slaves, either, but in 1 Corinthians 7 he tells slaves to abide in their calling. The implication about all of us being believer priests in NO WAY cancels the traditional distinctions of male headship in the marriage or in the church.

Gender roles are based on God's design, not on culture. While the specifics may change based on culture, it is inherent in our design. Paul himself points out that the woman was created FOR the man, to be his helper. Even in 1 Cor 11 when speaks about how women should adorn themselves (head coverings being a symbol of the time that distinguished a woman and demonstrated her voluntary submission to God's design for her role) he appeals to NATURE itself, and in other places he refers back to creation as a testimony. Notice that the distinctions between the genders were part of the created order, not a result of the fall. They are not cancelled by the New Covenant. In fact Eph 5 shows us how the relationship between husband and wife is STILL a picture of Christ and His Bride.

The arguments about these passages being only cultural are very weak. If Paul's prohibited women to speak merely because some of them were disruptive, why wouldn't he just address the disruptive ones? Others say it was because women were uneducated. That is not entirely true. Paul silences women, not heretics, noisy people, or the uneducated.

If women are united with their husbands, then she shouldn't need to speak up and risk contradicting him in publil or challenging his integrity as a leader of his home. They should discuss matters privately at home, and he should be the one to stand up and represent the family in the church setting. She ought to add her portion to the marriage by encouraging him and sharpening him with honor and respect.. that is a helping. (Also, as Viola points out, the church ought to be more organic where men have intimate relationships and accountability, to avoid the abuse of this principle.)

It is clear in scripture that leadership roles in the church are designed for men, for the sake of order. Women's dress, attitude and demeanor should demonstrate a humble and submissive attitude, but in no way indicates that women are inferior to men. Men are commanded to love their wives, and in the church setting, there is MUCH opportunity for her to minister to the body. Yet, as with every "freedom" God gives, there are limitations. These limitations are for our sake. All things are permissible, yet not all things are profitable. Things work best when we follow God's way.

Viola points out all examples where God used women. Yes, Jesus had high regard for women. They were an integral part of the body of Christ. They were often used to communicate truth. Yet we must notice that these examples are relational. Women teaching their children, discipling other women, sharing truth with friends, encouraging those in the body. She does not have a position of authority in the church.

Like I said, there are many things Frank Viola says in his article that are well thought out and clearly valid. Others need some examining.

Again, I HIGHLY recommend the book by John Piper called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It is pretty intense and academic.. but VERY thorough if anyone is inclined. It can be downloaded free. Chapters 5,6 and 7 deal specifically with the arguments raised in Viola's article.

http://www.cbmw.org/rbmw/

Hope some of what I said made sense.

God Bless

(Message edited by lmbles on November 15, 2005)

(Message edited by lmbles on November 15, 2005)

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
God bless Imbles.
As frank said in his article,there is much debate about this particular topic and he has tried to avoid even commenting on it because of it's potentially divisive nature.

I don't suggest that a woman has headship in a ministry above what scripture tells to us but that there is a portion that can be shared with all for the benefit of the body.
A portion that has long been neglected.
A portion such as you have just demonstrated to us in quite an elegant way.

May the Lord Bless and keep you,
Dave


</font>}

[lmbles (lmbles)]

Yes, I agree...

Thank you Dave.

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Great to have you here lmbles!

Aurora, I live by a new policy; I disregard what I heard in the past about ANYONE and just read them for myself. I am perfectly capable of agreeing or disagreeing with what I am reading. I like a lot of what Marianne Williamson writes and yes, she tends towards universalism.

[turtle (turtle)]

Some well thought out post but what if a woman is the spiritual leader in the home as well because of husbands lack of education both biblically and academically? Or a congregation is such could there be then a call for a woman as pastor of a church?

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

True preaching is never about prestige, position or paycheck.

Preaching is about having something to share about God's love and his ready help for people. Preaching, pastoring a congregation of people who assemble to hear of God has everythign to do with loving those people, laying down your life for the people of God.

Any woman so called, so gifted, so imbibed with the Holy Spirit enough to embrace an assembly of hurting and needy souls should follow God's gift in her and pour herself out from the pulpit....I believe this.

A pasor is only one person in the congregated assembly, agreed upon by all to lead the group in the spirit, to assist in organizing the group for the benefit of hearing more of He who called them together.

Lee and Jeannie, I understand what you are saying...but true pastors are not at all about paycheck, position or prestige at all, be they male or female.

Had God not chosen for me this path of illness, I would have done his bidding in any pulpit he chose for me, willingly, for no pay at all...it is a priviledge to serve him and I would have done so with my last breath, for I believe he would have led me there once. Now I am too ill, so I do what I can behind the scenes with others.

Women, gifted and learned women of God everywhere, if they are really true pastors of God are not known but by those few who they serve...as is right.

[coke_m (coke_m)]

<font color="ff0000"><font size="+2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica">NO!</font></font></font>

[lmbles (lmbles)]

Turtle, that's a good question. I think about that often.

There is certainly a way to still show honor and respect (as a wife) without letting everything go undone. I've seen many wives who teach their children devotions and pray with them while their husbands sit by and watch. Of course that's not at all permitted in scripture, but I'm saying that they take over the leadership in the home because he doesn't have the desire, but they do it in a way that expresses their longing for him to rise up and be the spiritual head of the home. They wait with expectation and are gladly willing to hand it over to him whenever he's willing. They gently encourage him and might even help him study instead of demanding performance and perfection from him with a critical attitude. They are still operating as a helper in the marriage, and adding her portion, but in a way that demonstrates full submission, even when he isn't being the proper authority.

I myself was a school teacher, and when the time came at church to gather "qualified" teachers to do an easter program that involved teaching (to adult men as well) I said that I wasn't comfortable with that, especially when we have so many guys available to teach. What a great opportunity for some of them to step up to the plate. I offered my help in the planning process to any guys who were uncomforable with it (since I was both familiar with the content of the lesson - resurrection eggs - and also have some good ideas on how to present the concepts effectively). But I'd rather promote the leadership of men than just do it myself, even if it might be a bit awkward and difficult for them. They would grow as a result.

I know many wives who do the same thing.

As for the pastor of the church... perhaps we need to rethink how we "do" church anyways? For that, I'd refer you back to www.ptmin.org (http://www.ptmin.org) b/c Frank Viola expounds on that one very well.

God Bless ya'll. I like to see people with sincere questions and a desire to walk closely to God, in His way.

LMBLES

[turtle (turtle)]

Should a woman teach a class of men. That is an interesting thought. I think I too would perhaps take a back seat. But do not women train there sons in spiritual matters. They do so whould there be guidelines for when a woman would take a step in teaching a group of men. If a woman is allowed to pastor then she could teach a group of men. Could and would being to different things. Personally I probably would not teach just a group of men with no other woman present, but then again Mary did go to the disciples and tell them about the empty tomb. But Christ disciples were probably very much like sons to her and sharing something is different then teaching them. So should age ever come in to a factor on when a woman should not be allowed to teach men in a church?

I personally perfer men to take leadership. But the truth is sometimes they won't step up to the plate even when given opportunity. In small rural areas you see an increaseof woman in the church and their roles changing because of this very problem. When I was a youth in my church because no adult would teach little kids i was given opportunity to teach. What is sad their were plenty of adults that could of done the job. I think it is important to try and get as many as you can involved in the church despite age. But I do think Adults should be setting the example. In my case I seen very little of this besides my parents and a few others. If people would step up to the plate in the church and start helping. They might just find their gifts.
Sorry maybe a little bit of a rant in last paragraph.

[phil (phil)]

I am impressed that the conversation has come to this great debate. It is worth every comment and thought. Piper and Grudem have presented their material well as both are scholars and very good writers. I have referenced these men for many years. However, on this issue I am not tracking with these guys. I understand their position and see it as something that they have to coclude given their evangelical background...
Here are a few other options to consider in the egalitarian/complimentarian debate..
"The Trinity and Subordinationism" (The doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate) Kevin Giles
"Women in the Church" Andreas Kostenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner
"The Apostle Paul &amp; Women in the Church" Don Williams

[dancer (dancer)]

jeannie I always knew you were Heritic! Reading somebody who tends towards Universalism and listening to Rich Mullins. Next you will tell me that you believe that Jesus was a human born of a women who is the living Messiah and Savior of the World. Such Heresy!

I think you need to get right with God and stop messing with these ideas that might get you in trouble. Hasn't anybody explained to you that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Here is a link to some real pictures of hell. Women who think they can preach may end up there on a trip with their church.

Dare you to find out what I meant. Check out the link:

http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellPhotos/

[cordell (cordell)]

Hells bells. Here we go again.

Aimee Semple McPherson.

Gloria Copeland.

That Hickey woman.

Etc.

Lord save us from these and their ilk.

The problem with the church is that its men are emasculated and effeminate and its women are unhinged and have strapped on fake testicles (Genesis 3:16b--"Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you").

The church needs more women pastors like it needs another queer bishop from New Hampshire.

Am I sounding typically me?

Damn am I predictable or what?

But then so are many of you.

Let's all sing that song from the musical "Annie Get Your Gun" shall we:

<font color="0000ff">Anything you can do,
I can do better.
I can do anything
Better than you.

No, you can't.
Yes, I can. No, you can't.
Yes, I can. No, you can't.
Yes, I can,
Yes, I can!

Anything you can be
I can be greater.
Sooner or later,
I'm greater than you.

No, you're not. Yes, I am.
No, you're not. Yes, I am.
No, you're NOT!. Yes, I am.
Yes, I am!</font>

Now let's hear it from the "Apostle Paul was a Misogynist" peanut gallery.

The issue is not about women preaching the gospel. Everyone is called to 'preach' the gospel. The issue is should women serve as pastors and elders in Christ's Church. The only way that can happen is for the scriptures to be utterly ignored or totally misconstrued and violated and God the Holy Spirit turned into a schizoid. Even more fundamental is the question--"has God assigned roles to men and women in the Scriptures and through creation?" Even a cursory reading affirms this to be the case.

Some will indubitably whine and sniff huffily, "But what if God has given a woman the pastoral gifts?"

That would be like saying "Well, what if God had given a man the gift of being a mother, why shouldn't he have a womb and bear children?"

God is not going to contradict himself in condemning an activity--such as women teaching men, or being elders as he does in the scriptures inspired by the Spirit (which so many of you falsely invoke) -- and then in a self-repugnant manner give women the gift of being pastors.

It is as reasonable (and I believe the issues are irrevocably related) for God to condemn homosexuality out of one side of his mouth and bless homosexual unions out of the other.

People who say women should be pastors and elders make God out to be a self-contradictory blithering and forgetful idiot or a huge heavenly hypocrite.

He is neither because he has spoken on both the above issues and equally condemned the contrary activities.

I can hear it now, "Oh no, its the "My way or the Highway Guy again!" or "How can you presume to read God's mind?"

Frankly, I hope you will all move to somewhere where you can have a woman pastor and be very happy together, I wish you well. And I don't presume to be able to read God's mind but I have been able to read plain English for a good few years now and I do think that the simplest of folks can read the Scriptures well enough to ascertain God's design for men and women and elders communicated sufficiently to us.

Considering the ants to have been sufficiently stirred up, I now return you to your regular program of blather and pablum as I eat my locust and honey wearing a hair shirt and leather belt, growing my hair and beard out crying in the wilderness.
(Message edited by cordell on November 17, 2005)

(Message edited by cordell on November 17, 2005)

(Message edited by cordell on November 17, 2005)

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font> Actually Cordell,
it was about women sharing what God has given them and how men in their insecurity have avoided letting them bless the body by speaking what He's done in their lives,for them and through them.
I don't think it has anything to do with a woman being a pastor.
Women have been suppressed from even sharing from the Word as members of the body,which is exactly what they are,equally a part as men are.
It's not about violating scripture by putting women in headship which is contrary to scripture.
It's about the whole body being the living expression of Christ on earth through the Holy Spirit which dwells in men as well as women.

For too long this portion (remember that word, LOL?) or expression of who Christ is,has been oppressed and squelched and pressed down into subservience in a position that is not complimentary to the nature of God.

I know pastors who have women get up and share what God has done in their lives through the Word and it sets people free because it's an expression of Life that reflects God Himself in an individuals life.

That's not out of line with the Word because they are not usurping anything.Instead,they are revealing a part of Christ that should be seen.

Dave

</font>}

[isabella (isabella)]

Thanks David Munson.

I have a question.

Who cares what Cordell thinks?

Thanks,
Isabella

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Gosh Jim, we were just talking... read my posts.. I would rather be Tinkerbell or Wendy, I will leave the job of flying to men (or lost boys..joke.. kidding.)

Please don't forget where we women came out of.. a place we had no voice. I don't want to preach, I just hope I can have a voice which can help another. I wouldn't want to be Gloria Copeland or that Hickey chick (I lived in Denver and the Happy Church was not my cup of tea) whether they are a woman or a man. Neither seem very authentic to me whatever their gender is. You feel strongly about this and I don't, I am neutral, I don't care. Your very strongly worded post did not stir me one way or other, except make me smile as I pictured you as John the Baptist which in my mind makes me think of Grizzly Adams. I thought they only had locusts and honey in Texas anyway.

Peace Peter Pan, Wendy

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

</font>}

[dancer (dancer)]

I am from the south and nothing kills me more than when Men start talking about women preaching.

The Southern Baptist Men are downright pathetic on this subject. The women are the ones who really gave birth to the whole denomination, kept it alive and kept it growing.

Now the boys want to put down the ones that made the denomination exist. How so very predictable.

"I believe that it is as much a right and duty for women to do something with their lives as for men and we are not going to be satisfied with such frivolous parts as you give us." Louisa May Alcott

}

[lmbles (lmbles)]

Dave,

I don't mean to sound argumentative.. but I thought you DID start the topic about female preachers..?

Your original post:

For a long time I have believed that a woman should never be in the position to preach.
I have had to rethink this because of ministers teaching the Word with a stronger balance. There are two verses in the new Testament that prohibit a woman from teaching/preaching to a man. Do we build a consensus on two verses? I would have to say "no."

That's why my response was specifically regarding authority. But as I mentioned in my post, their portion in the body shouldn't be hampered, as long as it is orderly it doesn't contradict headship in the marriage.

Just want to throw this one out there in the mix:

I've heard two different Greater Grace pastors say that the church age REPLACES family, and they have more "authority" over a wife (and children) than the husband does...

What do you all think of that one?}

[hodeuon (hodeuon)]

Whoa... I'm surprised they are so bold with their total control of those inside to actually say that. Not surprised that they were thinking it, though.

Perhaps they missed Ephesians 6:1-4?
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother,' which is the first commandment with promise: 'that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.' And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord."

Hodeuon

[lmbles (lmbles)]

I admit... my jaw just about hit the floor, too, when he said it. We asked him point blank, almost as a rhetorical absurd question. "Do you really think the church has replaced the family?" A confident "yes" was the answer.

He said that we're in the church age and so now the church is responsible for discipling kids. No no no, my friend. The family is the primary vehicle to train children, and the church ought to come alongside and assist the family by empowering parents to be better parents and providing opportunity for them all to operate in the full body of Christ.

I've also seen pastors privately going to wives and asking how their marriage is doing, rather than speaking to the husband or to both of them together. One time my friend told their pastor that he's the covering for his wife and asked the pastor not to initiate counsel with her privately, and the pastor responded that HE was the covering for the guy's wife, since he's a pastor.

<sigh>

Just another result of their imbalanced doctrine of pastor and covering. The almighty church sweeps in as everyone's savior, rather than following God's way, where individuals with their Bibles share with the church what they have to offer, and the saints build one another up to maturity, and each family and individual has its own responsibility to God.

And since the church is responsible for saving everyone and training everyone, they constantly promote soulwinning and raps and more church programs... rather than real people interacting and sharing Christ in their real lives. When people stop spending 24 hours a day in the church as an audience member saying "wow" all the time, they're forced to really be christians in their own homes and relationships; to show hospitality, to be a godly neighbor, to be a witness to their families, to serve one another consistently, to study to show themselves approved. What if the church taught fathers how to love their wives and disciple their children and show Christ's character and have a godly home. Instead, they teach them to be there whenever the doors are open, and they send the kids off to youth group. The busyness and constant activity (serving the institution) can often become a substitute for real christianity. (see toxic faith thread) It shouldn't replace family (including marriage roles and parenting) but it has.

You know, I first started to question how the church operates by studying American history... self-government, responsibility, etc. Anyone ever read "Of Plimouth Plantation" the diary of William Bradford? Oh, and another EXCELLENT one that shows history of Jewish family life which was influenced by Greco-Roman values, is "SAFELY HOME" by Tom Eldridge. (Both of these books can be found on Vision Forum's website.)

Sorry, I don't know how I got here. It's not really what this thread is about. I just get ranting every now and then... because I see where the church (at large, not just GG) has drifted from it's roots, and become the socialistic nanny caretaker for individuals, robbing them of their own responsibility for themselves, or for their families (as heads of their home).

But it's okay. Grace covers everything, so we don't need to really worry about following God's way (and avoiding destruction). It's all about love, man. As long as our church is growing, we're doing okay. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

(Message edited by lmbles on November 18, 2005)

(Message edited by lmbles on November 18, 2005)

[cordell (cordell)]

Dave M. are you absolutely sure that you weren't separated from Bob Brinton at birth? I am glad that someone brought up your original post.

Neil, how's rho? Is she ordained yet? You still 'ministering' to her?

Isabella, aren't you missing the latest episode of "Little House"?

Jeannie, the reason we ride our motorcycles without windshields down here in the Lone Star State is because we like to show off the wide variety of winged creatures we can catch in our teeth.

One of the ways, if you all will remember, that Carl used to "build up" women was to tell them how spiritual they were and how 'gifted' they were and what AMAZING (WOW, AWESOME!!!) insight they had--one only needs to conjure up memories Nancy Brown or Terry Zester or any number of 'spiritual' women who saw angels or had prophecies or were given 'gifts of discernment' or 'words of knowledge'--this practice of Carl's was as manipulative of women as was his technique of emasculating his male underlings--who are now lost without their daddy--as are a few of you who have had no really sound encounter with the Christ of the Bible.

[hodeuon (hodeuon)]

Do you suppose that they also believe that the church has replaced government? Is that why they don't care about breaking state &amp; federal law?

Hodeuon

[lmbles (lmbles)]

Hehe.. and the church definately supercedes free will, therefore they have the right to tell people, "I believe it's God's will that you... (fill in the blank)..." even with threats of health or financial disaster, or excommunication and marking as an incentive.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
I should have been a little clearer in stating that I now think women should be allowed to "preach."
I don't mean,to pastor a flock but to share from the Word.As any man would if the pastor asked him to.

Now,am I reading right?
Some GGWO pastor said the church has replaced the family?
Yeah,and I have opposable thumbs on my hoo-hoo.
Looks like their gonna implode if they keep revealing what they really think about the flock.
I hope everyone "still in" reads that.
My family always came before the church as it should be.
1.God
2.Family
3.Church.
I'm not surprised,except that they said it openly.
I'm surprised they didn't openly say that the pastor came before God.I'm getting a little sarcastic now.I should just leave it at that but reading what you where told gets under my skin a bit,LOL.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif

If a pastor went behind my back to my wife,he'd need a place to hide.You can bet I'd call him out on the carpet at the very next meeting he dared to show his usurping face at.

Man,these guys are arrogant.
A pastor is a covering for someones elses wife.
Wasn't that one of the reasons that so many left?
Yeah right,I've seen the kind of covering that is and it's called adultery.
I got a covering for that.It's called a size ten boot and you know where it gets placed.

Dave

</font>}

[nonotone (nonotone)]

Neil writes:

I am from the south and nothing kills me more than when Men start talking about women preaching.

The Southern Baptist Men are downright pathetic on this subject. The women are the ones who really gave birth to the whole denomination, kept it alive and kept it growing.

... well da, who else could do it? ... the emasculated men with wombs (with no apologies from Cordell)?

1Timothy 2:15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

... let's ask Marilyn Hickey what this verse means ...

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

(Message edited by nonotone on November 18, 2005)

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Men are so funny...in a decidedly endearing way.

It is not the least bit strange that men say they are "emasclated" if publically taught anything from a woman in a pulpit she was given, who was saved by the same blood, inhabits the Holy Spirit and is called of God...after all, the Bible was put together by men in a patriarchal society, who would not have seen fit to put women, children, emasculated (meaning gentle, non-violent, non-agressive males) types in any place where they would in any maybe seen as equal (even if the Holy Spirit meant them to, for they could not concieve...how punny...of such a thing)...that way their power base is secure. And we all know how important THAT is...yikes!


hmmmm....sounds like Jesus must have been terribly emasculated, I mean, he was very comfortable revealing his truths to women who were not, as from Jesus lips told NOT to tell men about what they heard from him, and the women seemed so much more ready to understand him than his manly disciples...you didn't find the women cowering in an upper room...funny that.

Anyway, someday the male population of the planet will evolve *gasp* and awaken to the concept of equality in the Spirit in all things, and will feel open and free to be brought to the knowledge of God, His Son and His Spirit by any human, be they male or female.

You guys already know that the Bride Jesus talks about includes you, right? *s*

I believe God is not as bound by the societal insrcurities of the male gender as some believe.

Saved or not, I now go straight to hell, right?

Such silly emotional ninnys some men are on this subject. *LOL* Oh well.

Have a great Thanksgiving everyone.

[isabella (isabella)]

Happy Thanksgiving Roberta!

Please keep posting as much as possible.

Love and prayers,
Isabella

[lmbles (lmbles)]

Actually.. many women believe the same thing, not because of any twisted motives, but because we look at scripture objectively and see that God designed different roles where each can glorify Him in such a beautiful and fulfilling way. Yes, equal in worth and status. Yes, filled with the same spirit and covered by the same blood. Yes, both offering their gifts to the body without shame. But with limitations, as with all liberties God has. It is not a societal insecurity... it is part of God's nature, his original design. Women really aren't HINDERED at all... they speak the truth in love, encourage, edify, sharpen, witness, pray for and pray with others, plan / organize, go on missions trips... etc. First and foremost, they ought to be good wives and mothers. But when it comes to public authority (teaching / preaching) that is designed for men, as is leadership within the home. That's part of their requirement to be good husbands, fathers, and leaders. This is not a lisence for abuse or tyranny. They are accountable, too.

When it comes to leadership, women are designed as complementary and supportive, which is a VERY important role. Men need us just as much as we need them. It's no less "prestigious" or important for us to operate the way God designed us. And it's definately not any EASIER for men to be the one who is responsible to lead. That's a difficult role, as is ours. But both are in complete harmony and show a clear picture of order. It's not some foreign notion invented by men, and it doesn't contradict with the rest of scripture at all. Once I was really willing to look and objectively seek God's heart on this, I found that I dropped all my self-protecting "opinions" &amp; offenses and saw that God's way really is freeing and beautiful.

Eph 5:21-33
1 Peter 3:1-7
1 Corinth 11:2-16
1 Corinth 14:34-40
Col 3:18,19
1 Tim 2:9-15

[nonotone (nonotone)]

That's part of their requirement to be good husbands, fathers, and leaders. This is not a lisence for abuse or tyranny. They are accountable, too.

AMEN!!! If most men who profess Christ had any idea now truly accoutable they are, they would be on their knees with the Book open a whole lot more and in front of the tube watching sports a whole lot less!


Brian Bowman
John 3:21}

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Just a short aside;
My wife and I have been married for 28 years to the day today.
She is the best the Lord could have united me with and we have stood together through the fire.
I have to give praise to the Lord for His Love and mercy towards us.To say the least.
I couldn't imagine having a better wife,it just couldn't be possible.

Dave

</font>}

[jayso (jayso)]

Now, we must BOLDLY PROCLAIM.....drumroll please..

H A P P Y
A N N I V E R S A R Y


To Dave Munson and Wife. The BOLD man with the bracket... Mazel Tov! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/proud.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/kiss.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/sad.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/biggrin.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/crazy.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif

Big FactNet HUGS { }to both of you! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/FactLogoSmall.gif




(Message edited by jayso on November 21, 2005)

[bjerwin (bjerwin)]

Happy Anniversary Dave you big darlin!!! Give your wife a big sloppy kiss from Mike and I!!!

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Thanks folks,
and Jayso,you just had to metion that stupid bracket didn't you,LOL?http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

I hate that thing and I can't do anything about it.
Can you here me now?Dear Lord,thank you for my sweet wife and oh yeah,deliver me from the "bracket." Ha ha ha ha.
I hate the bracket.
but
here it comes again,LOL.

Dave

</font>}

[jayso (jayso)]

Well the two brackets together makes a big hug!

{}

[lee (lee)]

Hey guys,
Do you still feel that this topic is an important one? Has anyone read the books Phil recommended? I haven't, but I think my attitude has been a bit flippant, and would like to learn something different from what I was once taught and have since rejected, but haven't replaced it with anything of lasting value.

Often, I find I don't have much respect for biblical truth cause instead of digging for it, I avoid it. Maybe its fear of what it may really be, or maybe it would be my responsibility for it. Whatever it is, the truth is a better place to be.

So, what do you all think? Is this something to talk about?

Phil, do you have something else to say?

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Hi Lee, I read the Kevin Giles article on "The Trinity and Subordinationism." It was a very thoughtful piece and guided me into an area I had never considered. Basically he walks us through church history and the triune doctrine. It is remarkable to consider how this doctrine was taught or the lack of the teaching effects the current view of the role of women in the church, and really, all of humanity.

Giles wrote "Because virtually all theologians agree that the doctrine of the Trinity should inform human relationships correctly, enunciating the historically developed doctrine of the Trinity is of great practical consequence. If in the Trinity all have the same authority, “none are before or after,” all are “co-equal” (the Athanasian Creed), then the doctrine of the Trinity calls into question all forms of human domination. It reminds us that totalitarian regimes that ride roughshod over people or hierarchical ordering that presupposes that some are born to rule and others to obey cannot and never will reflect the divine ideal seen in the Trinity. And to be quite specific, rather than supporting the permanent subordination of women in the church and the home, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity suggests exactly the opposite."

I think it is very difficult for those of us who were a part of TBS/GG to grasp the fact that leading doesn't necessarily mean preaching. In Christianity there are many great leader who do not preach. And there gifted women who should be able to share their gift behind a pulpit. We have such a limited knowledge of Christian thought and history. This subject is an example of how shallow the well of knowledge we drew our beliefs and conclusions from. I think it is interesting that Thomas Aquinas weighed in on this subject.

Giles wrote "The great Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century restated and developed Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity. Like Augustine he began with and emphasized the unity of God before he discussed the distinction of the persons. With his stress on the divine unity of the Godhead there can be no subordinationism whatsoever within the eternal or immanent Trinity."

Thomas Aquinas could be described as the "Father of Critical Thinking." Totalitarian-type systems (which TBS/GG surely is) build walls around their subjects and the subjects live in poverty. One of the great poverties of TBS/GG was the "poverty of thought." I think one of the greatest benefits of exiting is exploring the great Christian thinkers of the ages. So maybe this thread should be expanded, not limited to "Should A Woman Preach" but "What Are God's Thoughts of Subjugation of Any Kind?"

[bruder5 (bruder5)]

Perpaps the poverty of thought and the neglect of bueaty in much of the church is why so many "seekers" are looking for authentic community.

Walter Brueggeman said it well,

By offering symbols adequate to contradict a situation of hopelessness in which
newness is unthinkable,

By bringing to public expression those very hopes and yearnings that have been
denied so long and suppressed so deeply that we no longer know they are there,

By its promise of another time and situation toward which the community of faith
may move.

For all this change we need I think, a spirituality of the road.

[sojourner (sojourner)]

For some reason none of this matters to me...totally irrelevant...I am not saying that it isn't relevant or even important perhaps, but if I never gave it another thought it would be no loss.

I have to believe that for me anyhow, the Spirit is focusing my heart on other areas. I just want to be who I am designed to be not fit into some role or pachkage deal version of Christianity.

Once again I am back to my new mantra,
Jesus said, "Consider the Lilies of the field, they neither toil nor spin."
He told me to give that consideration...I guess the subject of women preachers is being left to other more capable minds. I am not concerned with the matter at all.

Perhaps it is due in part to the fact that I no longer view myself as a part of the church at large in America, haven't found a 'fit' yet. So much of it seems to box God in.

However, I do sense deeply, that Christ is more central in my life than He ever was. An irony perhaps, who knows, but to be where my heart feels no connection will not happen again if I can help it.}

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Bruder,
Your post is beautiful...the issue I found irrelevant was the debate over what "positions" women should be in, in the church...obviously you were posting while I was writing.
I agree, it is about the journey, the paths of the heart, being genuine, connected to the core of our being...so much is imposed on us, so many things try to capture our attention that we miss the simple entreaties of the Spirit He so willingly advances to the frailest soul who simply stops filling in the blanks with second-hand knowledge and prescribed religous formulas.
Brennan Manning has helped me along. I have to thank you for introducing him to us.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

I have read the books Phil suggested, and yes, after coming out of a particularly gender restrictive cult that not only put God in a box but locked out the Spirit, I think this discussion is very important. Perhaps, as the article Jeannie quotes suggests, the leader/preacher point is a deeper question of the equality in the Trinity that does not always, if ever, find revelation in the present fundamentalist dogma.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
jeannie,
That is a very good suggestion that you made when you said "So maybe this thread should be expanded, not limited to "Should A Woman Preach" but "What Are God's Thoughts of Subjugation of Any Kind?"
That's pretty much the modus operandi that's prevailed in GGWO over these many years.Subjugation of the whole flock.

So many of Christ's body are seeking to fill the lack that is so prevelant in todays misconception of what the "church" really is.
The sense that there is a hollowness to the wrote of calculated religious formulas is driving many to find the real path of the living freedom we have in Christ.

Breathing the Spirit rather than aspiring to a machanical,lifeless ritual of regulated behaviourism is what we seek in our innermost being.We want to "be",not act.
The walls of the box must be torn down by every believer that seeks to walk in His Life and experience the fullness of what we are in Him.

The truth that we all as part of the body,make up the whole,drives us forward to seek His way rather than just following someone less than Christ.
When we build each other up,we're really building ourselves up and causing growth in our member parts.
All have a place in this or none have any benefit.Oneness insures this.If you have what I lack,you may be used to uphold me or I you.We are a people that in Christ,compliment each other and show to each other and to the world that Christ dwells in us.
That we are one person made up of many.
We live the fellowship of the mystery.

Dave

</font>}

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">...after all, the Bible was put together by men in a patriarchal society...</font>

Yawn. "That was then, this is now--the Bible is out of date for the church of what's happenin' now"

<font color="ff0000"> Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away</font>

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Who woke Jim up?

[bruder5 (bruder5)]

On this one cordell I must disagree a bit...I'd love to have a beer with you (if only I could) and a couple red hotdogs from Maine but I think there's room for the the primacy and relevance of Scripture and this discussion.

"In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists." Al Rogers

[sojourner (sojourner)]

When Jesus said to "Learn of me" did He simply mean study doctrine...or could it be that in every age as the world changes we come to know the living word for our age...and relate to it totally differently than the believers did hundreds of years ago...
That verse about the word not passing away is often used to support a strict adherance to a bunch of rules and precepts derived from a literal interpretation of the Bible devoid of life and grace...It seems like it is also used as a cop out...to avoid real life problems and shove them under the old rug of "the Bible says thus and thus" so don't challenge anything...
God is alive now, and He is doing a new thing it says...so could part of that new thing be affording seekers of truth a new vision into the words that are relevant to this age without us making everything so formulaic and dry...
The stale old doctrine may be fine if you could travel back 20 centuries in time...but wise men seek Him still and He still whispers to the hearts and minds of every generation. We are not punished for evolving as a society are we...does God allow for forward momentum, change, intellectual and social growth, only to have us stay stuck in the second century? Can't God keep up with the times that He Himself set in motion?

[sojourner (sojourner)]

One example... parts of the New Testament are written to specific issues facing the believers in that time...such as literal persecution...real honest to goodness threat of extinction because of allegience to Christ...It was a very historical reality. But today many believers claim those verses and accuse others of persecuting them whenever anything happens to them that they don't like...

I knew people in Bible College who said they were being persecuted if neighbors complained because their yard was the messiest on the street...or if they took parking spaces up for Bible Studies that belonged to neighbors...everything that intefered with their little plans was persecution!...is that what the response of the early church would have been? Yah think!

In other words we construe meaning all the time but it isn't necessarily the "word that doesn't pass away" that we are applying to our lives...often we are only decieving ourselves and using scriptures to intimidate others from challenging us..."Oh but the BIBLE says!!" is often the retort...and everyone shuts up because we can't argue with chapter and verse...well what about studying to show ourselves approved...what does that mean?

I think all this quoting verses alone to answer people can be a serious way to take the Lord's name in vain. I'd be very careful about speaking for God as one of His so called experts... This attitude is rampant in the evangelical world, and among fundamentalists...Bible quoters do not ruffle my feathers...the Bible is not what I worship but the One to Whom it alludes to is the One I seek on several levels. And He is listening to us as we spew off verses on every subject...would people be so confident saying these things to His face? We may well be familiar with the Bible but we did not author it, and we do not have all knowledge and never will. Is God pleased with all this posturing over who has it right?

That is why I deliberately avoid quoting verses about every subject, but the scriptures are a vital part of what informs my being and shapes my world view. It is deeply personal and I would rather that meaning and effect of the influence of the scriptures be conveyed than just the form of words and verses.

The word that doesn't pass away is much more than a reference to chapter and verse, it has to have something to do with the word made flesh who dwelt among us and now dwells in us through faith...who are we to limit His plan through a rigid interpretation of the Bible?

So in any area that deals with limiting the creativity and passion of an entire population group, such as women, I would be very careful not to mess with the work of God irrespective of gender...be very careful you are not holding a second century gun to someone's head in the name of adherance to the scriptures...

Deborah saw the need for someone to go to bat for Israel and no man was willing...special exception, perhaps, but did that stop her from doing what she knew had to be done? Thankfully it did not.

The Bible may be the same words, but we are not the same hearers and the Spirit has made provision for that in the mystical way He interacts with men throughout the ages...In other words, God does not create time and tell it to stand still so the Bible can only be viewed in this static one dimensional way...

Again, it is freedom that I think threatens so many in the evangelical camp. So they need roles to keep things under control, but whose control I wonder...and is it really for the Lord's sake?

(Message edited by Sojourner on November 22, 2005)

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Could it be that the learners will inherit the earth because they are meek enough to perceive that they will never know anything as they should know it...you can learn, and learn, and never come to a full knowledge of the truth...the completness we seek, I believe comes through encounter, study may enhance that, but it can never replace it. The place of accountability before God is as unique as our fingerprints for every one of us...no one can dictate it...God is always speaking forth to our hearts...
People tend to label and dismiss...God keeps seeing all that is possible through His infinite resources. People who constantly ask others to pray for them to find God's will need to sit back and not care so much...all that preoccupation has nothing to do with worship or faith...it is more like a game of fill in the blanks or marching off into battle without any relationship to the only one who gives marching orders.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Sojo,
you said "One example... parts of the New Testament are written to specific issues facing the believers in that time...such as literal persecution...real honest to goodness threat of extinction because of allegience to Christ...It was a very historical reality. But today many believers claim those verses and accuse others of persecuting them whenever anything happens to them that they don't like..."

I don't disagree with you exsept that real persecution is alive and well today.People in many countries proclaim their belief in Jesus to their own danger.Many are being murdered and tortured in many countries such as China,North Korea,Eretrea,Saudi Arabia and the list goes on.

In America though,Christians think persecution is being called a Jesus freak or a Bible thumper.We don't have a real clue in this nation as to what it means to stand up for Christ in the face of death.
But
It's coming.

Dave


</font>}

[sojourner (sojourner)]

I agree Dave...and it was a specific example...but if you have ever read the story of C. Everett Koop who was the Sugeon General of this nation you would see that he suffered real persecution from the religious right for failing their expectations politically...He refused to be their poster child. He said God did not call me to be the Pastor of America but the Surgeon General of the Nation...of all the people...he based his policy recommendations on medical facts not the preferences of a small segment of society who wanted everything according to a "thus saith" mentality of literalism.
It was his genuine faith that helped him stay the course of what he believed his mission was...
In the end his integrity was admired by all and those he refused to alienate, such as people with aids, respected him and may have been more receptive to what he believed as a result of his fairness and objectivity as a Physician.
Good point though Dave, and yes I am aware of the suffering that goes on in other countries like China...we really haven't seen anything yet and I have no idea what I would do myself if push came to shove.
Thanks for your lovely card by the way...happy anniversary to you and Monique.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Thanks Sojo,
Dr.Koop is a man of spiritual integrity for certain.I like when a person refuses to be politically maneuvered.Especially when he holds an office that effects the public as Dr. Koop did.
I wasn't to impressed with Jocelyn (safer bullets) Elders.She'd have been better off as a comedian.You just never knew what she was going to come up with although she did provide some comic relief.

We need more people like Dr.Koop in this country.People that are more concerned with the well being of others rather than their own careers or reputations.I have a lot of respect for folks like that.


Dave


</font>}

[arron (arron)]

a woman can preach if he is called as weel as a man

[turtle (turtle)]

LOl aaron look at what you wrote. He is called as weeel as a man. I think you mean she. Sorry It just made me smile I am having one of them days and need a smile so thank you.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

Well you know Turtle,
Smiles and yawns are very much the same,
in the sense that they are both communicable.
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif
I just wonder if they might be a virus or a bacteria?

LMAO

Dave

insert bracket
</font>}

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Yawn,
you know you want to.

LMAO


Insert bracket</font>}

[arron (arron)]

turtle i was useing it in a way genericly??? i guess but i did mean .. she .. thanks..
and i didnt mean weel but will

[jayso (jayso)]

Hi, Greetings from Long Island - happy "Lasagna Day" (spare the turkey, please).

Anyhow, I'm at my dear ole' mom's house and was watching her local TV. I heard a woman preacher on TV... her name is Joyce Myers. Wow, that woman can PREACH. Don't know what her doctrinal slant is, but she seemed to command the undivided attention of thousands in her church/arena.

She preached up a storm and her style was as good or better than a lot of men. So ... should a woman preach? Well, certainly Joyce can. Personally, I would rather hear her speak than Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton or any GGWO!

[whatsup (whatsup)]

I don't think it is an issue of good style or whether you would rather hear her speak than certain men...I think it is an issue of what does the Bible teach on this, and that should be the only argument used on both sides. We are not the ones that make the rules about these things, although we would like to be. Our opinion is not the deciding factor

[johncollins (johncollins)]

Right. The deciding factor is based on the Bible and its teaching. And fortunately, there's never any question, controversey, difficulty nor difference of opinion as to how to properly interpret it.

Right?

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/proud.gif

John

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Way to go John!

[jayso (jayso)]

If God could use a jackass to preach... http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/blush.gif http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif

[whatsup (whatsup)]

John Collins, how do you interpret the bible on this issue? Has your wife or any other woman ever preached in a church that you pastored?

Jayso, your comment was so very flattering to women, and no doubt there have been many jackasses who preach, but it still does not settle the question

[whatsup (whatsup)]

John Collins, what is your interpretation of the bible on this issue? Has your wife or any other woman ever preached in a church that you pastored?

Jayso, your comment was so very flattering to women, and no doubt there have been many jackasses who preach, but it still does not settle the question

[lmao (lmao)]

whatsup,
The point is that the question will never be settled to the satisfaction of everyone. Godly people with strong biblical convictions come down on both sides of this and many other issues and like you, I would never allow such differences to preclude fellowship.

[whatsup (whatsup)]

how do you know what I would or would not do, you do not even know me

[jayso (jayso)]

LMAO, I agree wholeheartedly.

God has an order in His Church. I think it's funny how fundies often stand up strong against women preachers, YET incorporate their churches with the US Government as a 501c3 so that all the righteous people can claim their donations as a tax deduction. Is Jesus pleased with that?

<font color="0000ff">
1 Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

2 Matthew 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

</font><font color="000000">My point is that we are all sinners, saved by grace. Sin is sin. Many of the churches which stand up against women preachers accept government CONTROL of their churches so their members can get a tax write off. Hypocrites.</font>

[hodeuon (hodeuon)]

Jay,

How do you construe 501c3 as government control?

Hodeuon

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Pride and an unwillingness to hear God's voice from an organization's unsanctioned gender seems to be the major problems when it comes to women....women equally educated and equally spiritual...preaching.

The lack of humility in the fundamentalist male has caused its fair share of problems, domestically, globally, nationally and, dare I say, spiritually for humanity.

In Paul's day, women were not educated, and those males that were, being products of the patriarchial societies of the day were very repressive in their demeanor with women, lower classes etc.

Today, we have progressed far beyond that standard, at least in some quarters...and I think it is time for the males of this age to awaken to the spirit in all of God's people.

I mean, how will it be that "a little child shall lead them" when women and children are simply chattle and subordinate creatures?

Humble yourselves in the presense of the Lord...no matter who is helping you hear Him. With the current mess the world and the church is in, it might do to wake up and hear Him speak from the other gender, oh man.

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">"<u>In Paul's day</u>, women were not educated, and those males that were, being products of the patriarchial societies of the day were very repressive in their demeanor with women, lower classes etc.</font>

Yawn. "That was then this is now. That was in Paul's day--not our day, yadayadayada. God is out of date and I am not, blah blah blah."

For Pete's sake try to come up with a new argument.

Perhaps God, not being the type to plan ahead and being incapable to predict the amazing 'progress' of feminism was just caught unawares and is now in heaven slapping his head (Doh!) at letting Paul say such silly things.

(Message edited by cordell on November 26, 2005)

(Message edited by cordell on November 26, 2005)

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Why? This one is valid. Simply because you and others are weary of hearing it, my dear curmudgeon, doesn't take anything away from the truth of it.

The lack of true humility and humble ears within the ancient patriarchial society type is nothing new, and is as wearisome to those that are making the move toward adulthood in spirituality.

To reject the equality of all who have the kingdom of God within is incredibly childish, and seems to be the basic argument used by the male who is threatened by anyone making a "move" on their so-called God-given rights to power.

It is no longer necessary for women to be subordinate, for society has allowed for their equality, as has God. The same kindom dwells in me as it does in you...I have the same opportunities to learn, to be educated, to be a leader in spiritual, political, business matters as anyone else, including you, my friend.

Why deprive yourself of the opportunity to humble yourself before the Lord? He can use women in a pulpit, teaching others of His love, His truth and his grace, caring for the needs of a congregation as easily as he can use a man.

Yes, my friend...this is now. And living in "now" is wonderful if one opens him or herself up to ALL God has to say, give and be right here in the year 2005.

Many demand that women be the class that be humble. No problem...why not men? Because of Paul's sayings in a time when it was right that an uneducated woman be silent and not speak out for she was not fully informed?

For too many years men kept women in just such a state...uneducated, uninformed and subordinate. But no more...

BTW, Cordell...you know that women DO have the vote and have property rights nowadays, right?

I love you my friend, but on this point I respectfully disagree and find your dismissiveness a perfect object lesson for my argument.

Hope you and your family had a great Thanksgiving!

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">Gal. 3:28
There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.</font>

This is the equal access, equal standing verse. There is no respect of persons here concerning our access to Christ and our standing in grace as children of Abraham by faith in Christ.

It was also penned by that ol' misogynist Paul. Back then. Way back then. But it is good for now.

Now this is from the same hand, back then, and it is still good now:


<font color="0000ff">1Ti 2:12 -But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.</font>

You can not have your cake and eat it too. Both passages were inspired by the same Spirit who has never contradicted himself and has never inspired an out of date word.

<font color="0000ff">"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." Ephesians 5:22 AND Colossians 3:18 (must have been important to include in an epistle to two different churches.)</font>

The Scriptures are not, however you are inclined to take them in interpretation (if you are honest), a theological salad bar or cafeteria where you eat what you like and leave what you don't. You may be doing that, but don't call it belief, interpretation, theology or faith and expect to be taken seriously.

So your argument of that was then--this is now, must also be applied to the Gal. 3 passage equally to the 1 Timothy passage if you are at all honest in your approach to the Bible.

[turtle (turtle)]

Maybe the question is not so much can woman preach but where should woman be allowed to preach.

[cordell (cordell)]

BTW--Happy Turkeyday to you and yours too! We are at the second annual gathering of The Cordells and One Post Wunderkinds. We have found for the second year in a row that roasting the bird breast side down and not worrying about a pretty browned skin makes for extremely tender eating! I heartily recommend it.

AND there is really nothing quite like sweet potato casserole with pecans and browned marshmallows on top!

Also, adding a Washington red apple and sausage to the stuffing make for an extraordinary flavor.

All of that and a nap and then watching "The Polar Express" on big screen with six kids is a fine end to the day.

[cordell (cordell)]

Turtle: good point. Where, how and what subject matter?

Same misogynist, also in the pastoral epistles:

<font color="0000ff">Tit.2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 <u>That they may teach</u> the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 <u>To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed</u>.</font>

"That the word of God be not blasphemed." Is that reason enough for you? Works for me.

And then there's rearing the kids:

"<font color="0000ff">2Tim1:4 Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy; 5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.</font>"

[the_one_post_wunderkind (the_one_post_wunderkind)]

As great as the turkey is( my role as the 'sous-chef' is well known and accepted)...not that I submit to Cordell as a man to a man. But, I sure respect his authority in the kitchen, although if he got stupid with the knife my training would kick in and he would realize that my free agency has not submitted but respected his knowledge of cooking and his adept culinary prowess. All that said, a good as the turkey is the FLARP is the highlight of this year's Thanksgiving festivities! And, on this whole debate my finger is in the FLARP (http://216.194.77.244/product_popup.php?cat=ge2&amp;pc=N3B10) freely and without fetters expressing my response to what I really think about woman pastoring a congregation.
Noise is Good,
topw

[turtle (turtle)]

What about the samaritian woman who went and told her village about Jesus. She was the first woman evangelist. And she evanglized men. Most denominations have women missionaries that went in to the field and preached to both woman and men.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Actually, I do not consider Paul himself a mysogonist. At that point in history and the way society was formulated in his day, he was right. The women in that church who presumed to speak out when they knew nothing of the the finerpoints, having had no education, should have been silent. So too should men without the education and understanding have been silent,

Far too many men seem to think that because they are men that God allows for them to ALL possess the same spiritual power...this is not true. Not every man is called to possess spiritual power/calling/etc. They too should remain silent.

In that same way, women who possess spiritua; understanding and power need to be encouraged to speak, to care for the congregation, to lead if needed FROM a PULPIT.

No, I do not consider Paul himself a mysogonist. I consider those who use these verses to subjugate and dismiss women from spiritual leadership and such mysogonists...they are fearful of a powerful spiritfilled woman, and are rather mysoginistic.

I loved watching The Ploar Express!!!!

[cordell (cordell)]

Turtle,
I think a woman evangelizing in obedience to the Great Commission is simple obedience to the Scriptures -- as well as to be His witnesses throughout the world. But I think going from a woman who said "Come see a man who told me everything I ever did" to making her an evangelist who held the office mentioned in Eph. 4 is a stretch (and I am not sure that is what you're doing).

I think I mentioned elsewhere that everyone--male and female--is commanded to preach the gospel.

Holding office of elder is a quite different issue.

And we have well been round the houses on that one here before.

[louise_connolly (louise_connolly)]

Glad to now know who topw is from the Thanksgiving discussion. Don't know why you had to go undercover. Your name was never on the banned list like someone else http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

As usual, a man is more worried about the commanding the rules about position than the results for anyone but himself *LOL*

Woman in a missionary position only, where man commands her "role".., tsk tsk tsk

Woman in a position of leader can add so much to the spiritual comfort and health of a congregation. She has a particularly specific awareness men generally lack when it comes to people in pain, she is well aware of how to manage an organization from all those years confined at home managing the household while husband played the corporate ladder climbing ritual.

Men seem so very threatened by the woman who is equal to him, or superior to him in things financial, spiritual etc. I think this is indicitaive of the inherent weakness of men. It is their vulnerable soft spot that they have tried to hide for thousands of years....by nurder of the spiritual in those they need to consider less, so that they can be seen as superior.

Kinda pathetic.

topw...there was never any need to hide. How strange.

[nonotone (nonotone)]

RJ,

What you could be missing here is where in the Kingdom of Christ is there a place for evaluating whether or not anyone is "superior" to anyone else?

The problem is not with God, with His Scriptures, or with what they teach about the respective roles of men and women in the home and in the church.

The problem, more often than not, is with us weak, depraved sinners and the "positions" we feel we must defend.

... of course in the "neo-Montanist" crowd (radical pentecostal/charismatics) there are entire groups of women who pretty much claim "spiritual-superiority" to men. Look no further than Sister Gwen and her "End Time Handmaidens" &amp; Servents (http://www.eth-s.org/gwen/). BTW - this is a reference to her website. Google her if you want the real scoop on this cult.

... as a side, I believe many men would have no problem being married to a woman who is "financially superior" - providing that her ablity/wealth was not used as some kind of power differential in the relationship. No doubt all women who are married to men of such position would welcome the same. There is only one souce in the history of our race that teaches us about how this is possible - God's inerrant Word and its detailed illustration of the covenant of marriage.

(Message edited by nonotone on November 27, 2005)

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

We all know fundamentalists believe that Paul ...not Jesus...commands that a woman not preach.

This is 2005 and I believe that all believers are equal in Him.

Say what you will, believe as you will...fundamentalist I am not. Believer in His grace, I most assuredly am.

I believe the world and believers the world over would and someday will benefit from women in pulpits....loving and comforting, teaching and exhorting the congregations, working side by side with the Holy Spirit comforting God's people.

I am sorry you and others consider me less because I believe myself equal and yet am supposed to be gender subordinate, but I am equal.

[cordell (cordell)]

"ZZZZZzzzzz" to quote a leprechaun.

[turtle (turtle)]

The church has allowed woman to go in to countries and get killed for their faith when men were to chicken to do so. And yet if a woman wants to preach in the states the church has a fit. Just a bunch of double talk on what is suitable and what is not. Lottie Moon died on her way back from China she was a southern baptist missionary. She taught as will as preached to the oriental people. They allow woman to start churches in the mission field but to allow them in the U.S. they do not approve. Tell me someone what is the difference between the mission field and our church. Our church should be a mission field in the since of outreach.

[johncollins (johncollins)]

Any legalistic system must, of necessity, institute some form of pharisees to help parse and correctly interpret and apply every jot and tittle. As the all important keeper of the sacred words, they are the ones who can tell us which verses we must heed and which don't really mean what they so clearly say.

Take 1 Cor. 14:34 Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. 35 If they have any questions to ask, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.

Of course, just because it says "silent" and "not proper for them to speak," well, it doesn't really mean silent and improper (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=150&amp;version=nas), right boys? After all, they can sing, they can "share" a "testimony," they can make announcements, etc. So long as we don't call what they're doing "preaching" we're okay, right?

Funny, the literalists in the crowd demand a "literal" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=literal) interpretation, but only according to their literal interpretation. Not according to the normal, commonly understood meaning of the words. Who is the pharisee in the church that first ruled that silent doesn't really mean silent, and then can properly parse the point when she's crossed the line from testifying to preaching?

All you single women -- sorry -- you can't ride this bus. Best get a man so you can have that proper covering and headship.

Just because Paul told Tim "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments..." well, it doesn't really, literally mean a woman can't wear gold or pearls or braided hair or nice clothes, right? I mean, shoot -- what would the preacher's wives do then? No, there's lots of wiggle room. We can change that around, make it mean whatever Humpty wants it to mean.

A couple of verses later, when Paul wrote, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children," well by golly, those verses must be taken literally, right boys?

hmmmm.... so if a single woman bears a child without first procuring a marriage license, can she claim salvation from that verse?

John


ps to whatsup:
No, I never had women preach in the church I pastored. Ladies, please forgive me. If I were to ever pastor again, I will personally invite many of you to do just that.

[jayso (jayso)]

Question: "How do you construe 501c3 as government control?

Hodeuon, please read the following link. I have not verified all the information it gives, but certainly some is plain common sense and principles of Christianity. I brought that subject up because we're discussing women preachers. Would a church be disobeying the Spirit of Christ by submitting to government control? What's the difference if a church ordains women or gives the "headship" to the US government?

Here is the link:

http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/501c3.htm (http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/501c3.htm)

EDITED TO CORRECT WEBSITE LINK - IT WORKS NOW!

(Message edited by jayso on November 28, 2005)

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
I have thought about it and see that it is Paul that says "But I do not allow."
Paul did not allow.

He also refers to not appearing in dress as the prostitutes did.The religious prostitutes of the temple of Diana.(I think that was the name.)

Still it was Paul that did not allow women to preach or teach.
What was the specific reason for his doing so?
Was it due to the message that he brought about the misuse and confusion in the preceding verses that dealt with the gifts being used out of their proper order?
Was this creating an atmosphere of disorder?
It seems to imply that that is the case.

Paul was putting an order to the use of gifts and placing them in their decent and orderly position of use.
Why was it necessary for him to do so?
How does this relate to women keeping silent?

Any takers?


Dave

</font>}

[rachelengland (rachelengland)]

Dave I just have quick off the subject point to make- when I first came to factnet I ended up on a Joyce Meyers post(I'm not really fond of her) but it was your stance on women ministers and your hebrew salutations, that made me so ticked off at you-but you've come a long way baby-God moves in mysterious ways and he's opening up your eyes on how women can be very useful as ministers-Rachel

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
But,I like Hebrew.
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif

</font>}

[rachelengland (rachelengland)]

Thats okay kiddo- you keep using them they're unique and they're you! May El Shaddi(I think that's how you spell it) Bless you and yours... I'll leave the Greater Grace Post now since I don't attend therehttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[cordell (cordell)]

As is so bloody typical of some folks on here who are quick to strain at gnats and swallow camels -- they condemn the abuses of CHS and GGWO and don't realize they have never understood God's definition of the roles of men and women in the family or in the church.


CHS destroyed families by manipulating the roles, and John you above all ought to be VERY aware here.

He told women they were 'spiritual' and had 'insight' and 'discernment'. He told them they were 'gifted' above their husbands and that they would have to be patient with their husbands because they were more spiritual. I think of Linda Canino and Patty Huff and many others who Carl led to believe that he above all other men recognized their gifts when their husbands had no clue at all. He told them that they were capable of prophecies beyond their husbands and that they were 'worth' more than being mere 'baby machines' and he even decried the role of mothers in families by saying the women who just 'popped out babies' could never serve God as well as women with fewer children.

You fail to see the deception even now.

The Scriptures are clear John, and I am not your average 'literalist'.

I pray you never pastor again until you learn the roles God intended for the sexes to be happy and glorious in.

Women were created for a purpose as were men--they were created to have joint dominion over the earth with men in a supporting role. They were not created to be men or to have roles in the church which were graciously allocated to men (Eph 4). They are created to minister as saints who are equipped by those who were gifted to equip them.

I'll take the punches from the libs and left and whoever wants to throw them but if you all are so blind that you can't see how feminized the modern church has become ( and in so becoming -- it has become more confused, crippled and therefore USELESS) then that is your problem.

But you have no business pointing the finger at Carl when you are swallowing this camel.

(Message edited by cordell on November 27, 2005)

[turtle (turtle)]

Cordell, yOu sound like a backwoodsmen that likes there woman barefoot and pregnant. With that said. How do you persoanlly deal with woman missionaries do you feel they are out of line building a church?

[turtle (turtle)]

Shoot I got to ask you, Who is in charge Jesus or the minister anyway? I hope Jesus is the head of the church and not the preacher. Was he not male.

[nonotone (nonotone)]

Should a woman preach?

Give this a listen and then decide:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=15140

[phil (phil)]

As I read these post from the "guys" there seems to be base belief that Paul said thus and so and it means "this"... A simple question... Why not take a short season and read from good biblical scholars who take an entire different look at the typical collection of verses used to keep women in the marginal ministries? (Fee, Williams and the likes) Then when you post you can say you have read and considered this issue from more then the conservative evangelical paradigm.., Just a thought...

[louise_connolly (louise_connolly)]

The names Cordell mentioned above come to mind, when I think of 'God's Complete Bimbos'. The cult was a scary scary place. The women who were extolled as the ones to emulate were the ones that worshipped at the feet of Carl. Let's all read the foreward to 'The Bible Speks from the throne' for a trip down memory lane. Nah, I'll just head to the throne for a hurl at the mere thought of it.

Turtle - you're catching on, I'd say backwoodsman and proud of it.

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Chs manipulated minds not just roles...and Jim I think you are considered to be an above average literalist by far, don't sell yourself short.
As a "gloriously happy" single woman, even more so because I never married a chs clone...never wanted to, the things you speak of have no meaning to me in the context of the work of God in my life.
I am so grateful to have been led out of the three ring circus of the American Church Movement (or stagnation)...it actually makes me laugh, how silly and small all these arguments are.
And gee, Jim, thank you so much for telling me why God created me. I know now that if I ever appear in a movie that they must be sure to always designate me as supporting actress, even if I am the star.
Everything you guys have shared here reminds me of just that acting...not living in the presence of God.
Doesn't touch me though...it isn't even relevent to the world I see and the way God speaks to my heart in it.
Of course I am just a subjective female.

[karen (karen)]

"I pray you never pastor again until you learn the roles God intended for the sexes to be happy and glorious in."

This from the same man who asserts that slaves were gloriously happy in their roles too.

You just don't get it, Jim, and that's all that can be said.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Now for the clincher,
How many of those of us who are agreeing and disagreeing on this topic,would still be allowed in GGWO if we where heard doing so?

In other words,most of us here would be marked as enemies of "the ministry" for having such a discussion.
Not here though.There is too much of Christ here for that.

Look GGWO pastors and leaders,see how it's done in the body of Christ?
Agreeable disagreement,without unbiblical marking.No making of enemies either.

You so called leaders of GGWO should learn from this.This is what "body life" (remember that term?) is all about.

Shame on you for your unGodly marking!

Dave

</font>}

[karen (karen)]

Submission between the genders is a mutual process that yields unimaginable blessing. But it never begins with a paradigm of privlege vs. disenfranchisement. The privileged male may wish to believe his subservient female partner is fulfilled in such an arrangement, but she is always a rebel waiting for opportunity. The male is often blind-sided by the revolution, not understanding the dynamics, thus destined to reenact the sorry situation until truth dawns in his narrow universe. Pain is a hard taskmaster.

[johncollins (johncollins)]

Hey Cordell!

Not sure how much of your November 27 1:14 pm post was directed to me. As I was named twice in it, I'll guess it was the entire post. Yes? No?

Why assume I was merely poking at gg in what I wrote? The thread seems to be a generic, open ended discussion on the subject. Reread my post (http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/15402.html?1133132917#POST227896) in the context of this entire thread.

Now reread the specific questions I asked. Why make paper dolls out of the Bible, cutting away certain verses while keeping the adjacent verses? The verse commands women to be silent in the church, doesn't it? Many posting on this thread, as well as most fundies in general apparently interpret it that speak doesn't actuallly mean speak, it means preach. On what authority do you/they change the word "speak" to mean "preach"? It's okay for women to communicate many other forms of speech, just not the form known as preaching? My honest question is, why?

As some wit once opined:

When the plain sense
makes good sense
seek no other sense
lest you end up with nonsense.

What does 1 Cor 14:34-35 mean by "Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak.... it is improper for women to speak in church meetings"? The Strong's dictionary definition (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=150&amp;version=nas) of "improper" is "filthy, baseness, dishonour." The NAS translates improper as "disgraceful" in 1 Cor. 11:6b "...if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.")

I don't believe that a woman speaking in a church is filthy nor disgraceful, yet the Bible says it is. I'm not adding unto, I'm not taking away from, I'm quoting. And acknowledging that I have a problem with this.

The difference between me and most fundies? I'll admit this verse troubles me. They'll claim to hold to a literal interpretation, until that literalness causes too much discomfort. Then they'll twist like a contortionist (http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/img/crazy-contortionist.jpg) to explain why the plain sense isn't really what it means...

Which is it? Do we literally interpret this passage, and forbid women to speak in the church, period, or...?

I think even most fundies and literalists (both the average and the above average ones) are as put off by what the Bible clearly says here, so they reinterpret the plain sense and make it mean something other than what it seems to be clearly saying.

And you can't push this off on Paul and say that's what he said and not what the Lord said. 1 Cor. 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

I could rehash all else I wrote above concerning single women, gold and pearls, etc. But I think repeating it would be as futile as the first post, so - why bother?

Oh, and New Boss? Much as I appreciate the sentiment, are you really spending time mentioning me in your prayers and asking the Father to ensure I never again pastor a church until I line up with yo... er... until I learn the roles God intended? Isn't that precious...

John


--
Had to edit to correct a typo. I hate when that happens!

(Message edited by johncollins on November 27, 2005)

[jayso (jayso)]

Hi John,

Very interesting perspective. Having come from an orthodox Jewish background, I have always interpreted this verse in a provincial context. In our synagogues, women are separated from men. In the one I attended the women sat in the balcony and there was an opaque screen so that the men could not see the women in the balcony.

I believe Paul was admonishing the women to be silent in church because they may have been shouting to their husbands in the men's section of the church. Paul says that the wives should not speak to their husbands in church, but speak to them in private before the service. Can you imagine what the church would sound like if several women were shouting from the court of the women; far away from the men. It would grieve the Holy Spirit and cause confusion in the church.

This is my opinion of what Paul meant by saying women should be silent in the church.

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Jayso,
Please indulge this silly woman...when I read your post above, which makes great sense by the way,
I got this picture of a woman leaning forward and yelling:

"Hey Simon, don't forget to pick up eggs and lentils on your way home!"

Now back to this serious debate...here I am fueling all the reasons why I should be keeping silent!

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Oh Sojo,
your comments are always welcome.
(as if you didn't know)
You just painted a cool picture point to compliment Jayso's comment.

The first church was made up of Messianic Jews (the first)Mark 10:31.Then later the gentiles where told the good news (the last)Mark 10:31.
Of course the verse that states "He came unto His own and His own received Him not would fit here better.

There is merit to what you say Jayso.There would have been much of Jewish practices that would have come into the church while they where being taught of the new covenant of the Shed Blood.

I wouldn't want to attend anyplace that was so legalistic that they didn't allow the women to sing.(wouldn't that be in line with keeping silent?)
Imagine the Lord's command not to open your mouth in praise to Him because you're a women in a church?It just doesn't fit.
Let all who are His give praise to him in all places.
Let all who believe tell of His wondrous works.

Dave


</font>}

[boss_martian (boss_martian)]

Hey John Collins,

Who is the New Boss?

Same as the Old Boss?

Phil

[johncollins (johncollins)]

Phil,

New Boss (http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2682885?htv=12) <--> Old Boss (http://www.superseventies.com/sw_wontgetfooledagain.html)

John

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Ha ha ha ha ha.Leave it up to you John to find that.LOL.
Now that's funny.

Dave


</font>}

[lmbles (lmbles)]

Thanks Brian for that URL.. it was good.

[lee (lee)]

Brian (etal),
Have you considered reading the books Phil mentioned? Just so you don't have to scroll up looking for them, they are:
The Trinity and Subordinationism by Ken Giles
Women In the Church by Andreas Kostenberger and Thomas Schreiner
The Apostle Paul and Women in the Church by Don Williams

I'm wondering if we could be grateful for what the old dead guys have written as well as recognize what guys that are still alive have written? As a women, I'm still willing to read what contemporary guys have written, even though they aren't women and are still alive.
I'd like to see a conversation where we have considered both sides and have researched and really heard what others points of view are before we judge. We can certainly get entrenched in our thinking, can't we?

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">Cordell, yOu sound like a backwoodsmen that likes there woman barefoot and pregnant.</font>

actually, I live in the nations eighth or ninth largest city (we go back and forth with Baltimore)—and I’m with Joe Cocker on the barefoot thing—she can leave her hat on. (Good for women to keep their head covered) And as for pregnant—I have five kids, the oldest is 28 and the youngest is 3 and yes I am insane, but very happy thanks, and we are done having kids.

I think if you read what I said above, the only problem I have is with women serving in the office of elder, having authority in the church over, or a teaching office to men. If you look at the example of Priscilla with Aquila in their ministry to Apollos you see a woman with her husband bringing a man called of God along in his ministry.

<font color="0000ff">Phil: “Then when you post you can say you have read and considered this issue from more then the conservative evangelical paradigm.., Just a thought...”</font>

Thanks Phil, I have and Alvera Mickelson and Gretchen Gabelein too, and the whole ‘head’ meaning ‘source’ argument as well. Very entertaining, but non-convincing.

<font color="0000ff">sojourner: And gee, Jim, thank you so much for telling me why God created me.</font>

You’re very welcome sugarpie. (is that diminutive enough?)

<font color="0000ff">Karen: This from the same man who asserts that slaves were gloriously happy in their roles too.

You just don't get it, Jim, and that's all that can be said.</font>

Since, Karen, you have so graciously misquoted me—shall I remind people who you are so we see who doesn’t get what?

This, my dears, is from the lady who finds the holy acts of a holy God recorded in holy Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Himself to be personally repulsive to her own sense of morality! (Now, I can dig up the email if you like, Karen but I think this paraphrase is sound) So follow along with me, if you SPEAK against the ACTS of a HOLY God in His OWN self-revelation and you call him immoral—doesn’t that make you a blasphemer?

[cordell (cordell)]

John,
Before I address your points, let's think about this from more than one perspective. First, experientially--you are aware aren't you of women who are more loyal to CHS and his 'ministry' than they are to their own husbands? Is this normal? Why does it happen?

I would assert that the problem is more than just CHS and his run of the mill billshut. I'd say it is MEN abdicating their role as MEN and HUSBANDS as LEADERS and PROTECTORS of their WIVES. I would challenge any man with a wife still under the spell of CHS (which partly occured because there can only be one alpha male in Carlyworld and all other men are like the young males in a pride of lions--they don't get to mate)to gently teach her from scripture what he failed as a man to do (to lead and protect and teach her and her children) ask her forgiveness on his knees, and then tell her that she, her children and her husband are going to find a new place to learn of the Christ of the Bible and not the Christ of CARL.

Then those men should face down Schaller, Scibelli, Love, and all the clones with the Scriptures and call them out to repent of their sin and remind them what happened when the 'ministry' attempted to interfere with the Lang household and alienate husband from wife.

Perhaps you will see that this is more than just a paltry little theoretical exercise for me.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Now JF...there is no need to call others names or put them down in a condescending way to try to shore up your point.

We know what you believe and that you are convinced you are right beyond all or any other perspective.

I, for one, disagree with you as you know, but do not call you names, put you down (any more *s*) or disrespect your convictions. Please...be a good ambassador for the God you so strongly believe and be respectful of others?

You are being kindly admonished my dear friend...and you know I am your friend. Kindness and respect toward others is not weakness...it is a strength that resonates.

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Jim your points about the men not asserting themselves and yielding over to chs is well taken...
I am not a feminist but I understand the very human reasons why it arose as such a movement in reaction to perverted views of male superiority.
As far as gender differences go, I celebrate them.

I do not appreciate your words to Karen, not that she cannot defend herself but that was a bit extreme. I am sure she is not losing sleep over it.

I also agree about men being leaders in their own households and not allowing mediation to violate the sanctity of their family relationships and homelife.

I appreciate your clarifications and also what you did for the Langs. I understand that you have personally invested a lot in the situation because you have the principles and understanding to truely see what was at stake and the ramifications as it was multiplied over many families...

We are all learning as we go along...I wrote in response to how your previous post affected my gut reading it at face value. For that I do not apologise. I see it in a more tempered view now that you have written the above.

Relative to John, I think he is very aware of the syndrome you have highlighted...what I am astonished at is how blanketly his very precise questions were glossed over about the way in which verses are interpretated when carried out to other passages, the consistency collapses in terms of the accepted views about women and their role in the church. No one has really answered John's specific questions. Maybe someone could re-read his very well thought out questions and reply logically.

Now I see that this issue is more than a theological exercise for you.

Still I have some reservation about the way you sometimes come across, however, there is much that you say that has made me think. I can appreciate that.

[karen (karen)]

Jim,

I stand behind everything I have said. I am sorry if I misquoted you in specifics. However, I believe my statement captures your essential values.

And no, I do not find "the holy acts of a holy God recorded in holy Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Himself to be personally repulsive to [my]own sense of morality!" I attribute the repulsive acts to human beings--many of whom believed they were serving God as they mistreated, enslaved and killed others.

Just because you believe every jot and tittle in the books of the Bible are the inspired Word of God doesn't make it so.

[turtle (turtle)]

Cordell, you are only a state away from me. Actually I have family near baltimore. Happy to here how blessed you are. Children are special blessings from God.

Quoted from Faussett's Bible dictionary.

"Deaconess

Rom_16:1; "Phoebe, servant" (Greek text: "deaconess") of the church at Cenchrea." 1Ti_3:11; "even so (marking a transition to another class from deacons) must the women (i.e. the deaconesses) be grave," etc. Domestic duties are omitted, though specified in the case of the deacons (1Ti_3:12). The same qualifications are required in deaconesses as in deacons, with such modifications as the difference of sex suggested. Pliny in his letter to Trajan calls them "female ministers."t how do you deal with woman as deaconess,"

Can woman not be elders if they are deaconess's????

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

"Just because you believe every jot and tittle in the books of the Bible are the inspired Word of God doesn't make it so."

I agree with you Karen. How I have missed you! I hope you are well and are looking forward to the holidays!

Roberta

[dinaweena (dinaweena)]

doesn't that statement fit the other way too? Just because people DON'T believe that every Word of scripture is God breathed doesn't make it not.
Not that I am taking any position on this matter....it just seems to be yet another, "I'm right and you're wrong"...it's all so subjective and yet not one of us REALLY knows anything beyond Who we are in Christ...and somehow even that is confusing to some....

[karen (karen)]

I agree with you, Dina... I could be wrong, so it's a good thing I'm trusting in what Christ did for me and not a belief system. The longer I am a Christian, the shorter my list of certainties. I cling to the basics.

Hey Roberta!

[cordell (cordell)]

From J. Gresham Machen's "Christianity &amp; Liberalism" published in 1923:
...modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions.

The repulsive acts you speak of i.e. the massacre of entire people groups, etc. are very clearly commanded by God and the record is claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit both by the apostles and by Christ himself--so it has bloody bugger all to do with what I believe or don't believe (which makes no difference at all) and I am not at all amazed that the most thickest of heads cannot grasp this--it has everything to do with how Jesus Christ perceived the Scriptures which one may easily ascertain by a perusal of Luke 24. As far as the 'jot and tittle' quote goes, look it up and see who said it first, my little onions.

You may call what you believe "Christianity" but it does not cut the mustard ethically, historically, morally, biblically, theologically or in any other way.

As far as addressing John's specific points--I'll get to it, unless TOPW or nonotone get there first.

I am not ignoring them and avoided them purposely if you read my first response above to address an experiential issue first.

[cordell (cordell)]

Sorry, Turtle to have led you to misunderstand me, I live in San Antonio,TX which is either the 8th or 9th largest city in the US depending on whether Baltimore has annexed something else or whether S.A. has annexed something. (FYI, in factnet's short history, I used to post as Cordell Walker as a poke at Bruce Moon's Sam Spade--Cordell Walker is of course Walker Texas Ranger. Do a google on 'one ranger, one riot'.) Factnet is definitely a riot sometimes.

As you may see, if you search through FactNet's archives, I sometimes find myself fighting on two fronts--as on another thread with GGWO sychophant RHP and here with the usual cast of liberal theological suspects.

If you study 1Tim3 you'll see that the requirements for elder are particularly male (and have been interpreted and understood that way for over 2000 years). The word 'deaconess' as I am sure a little search through Strong's or any other good resource comes from the word meaning (watch out here, Karen) SLAVE. It is not necessary to impose upon Phoebe an office of deacon though she obviously served the church.

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">Sojourner: Still I have some reservation about <u>the way you sometimes come across</u>...</font>

You're kinda new here aren't ya sweetheart? Join the freakin' club and grab yer paddle!

[dancer (dancer)]

Hey Ranger truth and love seem to be points you missed in scripture. Maybe you think love is like tough love as John Hinckleys father would say you know we listen to Dobson and end up with a shot president.

Start with the idea that Paul had with agape and move on with your words. I sure believe there is a place to be tough. But to intentionally or knowingly hurt somebody is not the character of a Christian.

[karen (karen)]

I can see why you would like to marginalize me. That would help you to discount my thoughts. Call me a liberal and you don’t have to respect me. It is not clear to me that God ordered the “massacre of entire people groups.” Jesus admitted that the Father made concessions with His people because of the hardness of their hearts. I think this is significant. So, even though I consider myself a sinner, and I recognize that Jesus was God Incarnate and I am saved through His voluntary death on the cross—that is insignificant to you. I don’t line up with what you consider essential Christianity.

Think about this—project some of these “acts” into our time and place. Are they acceptable? You aim your gun at the two-year-old ENEMY and the mother shielding her infant in the corner of the room. You are obedient, so you harden your heart and pull the trigger. Compassion is weakness, disobedience and compromise… NO!

This is NOT the God I know. You will NEVER convince me otherwise. In fact, you scare me. And yes, we are partakers of “different religions.” You are of a different SPIRIT.

[dancer (dancer)]

Cordell she has more balls as a liberal than you do as a fundie. Good luck buddy.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Karen...

The other spirit you see is called..."using God to perpetuate the patriarchial aggressive illegitimate power" that has torn apart religions of all kinds throughout history. It is the product of male insecurity and the only way some men can feel any self worth at all.

I rejected that spirit a long time ago as you did. It is the spirit of Carl the Cult Leader that some of these more aggressive types simply cannot release.

Cordell still has the same harmful spirit. He sees this as a good thing. And he is not open to learning anything that is contrary to the self-image he clings to as much as the GGWOers cling to Carl and Schaller's BS.

There is no difference between the spirit of rhp and JF...same childish self-esteem clinging. It is sad...one hopes that one day these men will see the harm they do and find the God that they haven't yet found.

I know you alreadyknow this, and it is so good to see you post!!! No one has what it takes to get through to JF...he is far too much his mentor's boy...he still is of Carl and marginalizes all who dare disagree...he has to to be what he is.

I love him, and find it disturbingly sad. So I pray for him. I am sure many do.

[turtle (turtle)]

Cordell,
I argue sometimes on more then one board try not to have to many arguements on more then one thread. it confuses some posters. lol. I believe woman can preach and also be elders, but there are certain conditions where I think this happens. When there are not strong men in leadership being one. Men should be encourage but some men are just not called to preach. My husband encourages me but I pray for the day that he will lead and maybe preaching is not his gift or teaching isn't his gift. And if it is not He is still head of my home allowing me to lead where my gifts are. Sharing jobs and not putting me in a particular role just because I am a woman. I go where God leads and do has He leads me and yes I am going to run into men that will think I should not preach to men or teach. But then I shouldn't be there. There are so many people needing Christ and few men stepping up to the plate.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

turtle, so you still believe that men are supposed to be the leader, and women can only be leaders when men will not...correct?

Which part of the Trinity is subordinate to any other? Shall not men and women be equal in the spirit? Shall women continue in the patriarchial system that, as Cordell believes, justifies genocides using the Old Testament?

If a man chooses to be the subordinate member in a relationship, is he not following God? And if not how would anyone judge without enmity toward him?

Why is the 'feminization' of the church a dirty thing to people like cordell? And remember...you have agreed that this has happened, so telling me to ask him about that isn't fair...I am interested in YOUR opinion.

Thanks.

[arron (arron)]

amen turtle that is how i too believe. how close you and i seem to be in our beliefs. maybe our baptist back ground??. a man should lead but if he wont or cant it is up to the women and beside if they are called they should do it any way.

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Cordell,

From J. Gresham Machen's "Christianity &amp; Liberalism" published in 1923:
...modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions.

And that is exactly what I have abandoned, the religion of Christianity, but not Christ.

I still appreciate some of the points you made regarding the manipulative tactics of the ggwo pulpit among families, but you seem to equate a closed mind with devotion to God.

I don't really give a crap about some guys ideas about liberalism from 1923.
It doesn't make your position more or less credible.
You seem to have everyone sized up neatly here Jim...and yet when others size you up, they are told they aren't even in the running because you are on with God and they are off...
Kind of sounds like someone who said, "And I am your pastor/teacher like it or not!"

Seems the new boss has emerged.

Karen your posts really helped me to see some things more clearly...and I have seen more liberals operate in love, who also love Christ, than many who "love the word" who spend all their time splitting hairs over interpretations...
Love in action is my interpretation.
The Word Made Flesh.

[turtle (turtle)]

turtle, so you still believe that men are supposed to be the leader, and women can only be leaders when men will not...correct?

Yes and no, I think some churches don't mind woman in leadership or have no trouble with it, so yes I could pastor in that type of church, but so many churches do have trouble with women pastoring. So personally I will not rock the boat just to get men to let me preach to them, Does forcefully getting a man to listen to us preach get anywhere? No, because they walk out taking their poor defensiveless wives out the door.

I think men who perfer woman to take a backseat really desire control of every situation. It is almost abusive in some ways. But I think if we all meet cordell he is not the bad guy as he comes across to be. Yes he doesnt' want a women to preach but how about being a boss of a company? That is what you should ask him. This would prove whether he is truly against women or not. Cordell is very fundamental in the literal interpetation of the bible and has neglected the historical aspects of the bible in this particular instance, but what about other biblical subjects.

If women have spoken out during paul and the other apostle day they would of been out of order. It was definitely a man's world then. The did share equally in some task, but woman were not allowed to speak publicly against their husband or to other men. So tell me how could women have authority they did not have in regular society. We do not live in that day and time.

Something Christian woman must remember and that is not to set up a march just to get a chance to speak. it only causes division, but actions and what one does demostrates ability. When men see a woman ability to preach or to even pastor, they do not mind it. They may grumble but they won't rock the boat either if the man has prayed about it.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

turtle

I most heartily agree, that if the congregation was not in favor of a woman preacher it is not good nor Godly to force the issue. But if a congregation does want a woman, I don't believe they are any less Godly or less Christian.

Cordell knows I love him...he has been an amazing friend to me. I rather admire the old curmudgeon though we disagree on almost everything *LOL*

Thank you for answering me. I appreciate your balanced viewpoint.

Happy Holidays!
Roberta

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Interesting discussion. It has made me re-examine some things I took for granted.

I think of first importance in this is the role of the Bible. Is it the word of God, free of error? I believe it is, and the most compelling reason for me is the way Jesus interacted with the Bible (OT).

A great way to spend a week would be reading the Gospels, and meditating on how Jesus viewed the Scriptures. It is extraordinary - He had absolute confidence in them. He never questioned or cast doubt on any verse. In the story of Lazarus and the rich man, the latter requests that he return from the place of torment to warn his brothers. Jesus (speaking through Abraham) replies that if they did not listen to Moses and the prophets, they would not be convinced though someone rises from the dead.

I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That He always validated and trusted the Bible gives me confidence that I can too (even though some sections give me fits!). He often challenged people's understanding and application of the Bible, but never challenged the Bible.

If you believe in the deity of Christ, but struggle with inerrancy, try re-reading the Gospels and "getting inside Jesus' head" about this.

Does God have the right to ordain that men be leaders in the home and in the church, based on the order of creation? That is the "complementarian" position of the "Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" http://www.cbmw.org/.

A web site which has some great info, and presents most of the arguments for egalitarianism is http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html. The author, along with other "evangelical feminists", believes all the Bible.

I'm surprised that Roberta in arguing for egalitarianism would appeal to the Trinity, which I think is a perfect example of complementarianism. There is profound love, harmony, unity, equal value; yet decidedly different roles. In the words of Jesus:

"These words I speak are not My own; they belong to the Father Who sent Me."

"The Father is greater than I."

"I do exactly what the Father has commanded me".

The Trinity remains a holy mystery, yet the Father does seem to have a leadership role.

Clearly women played a HUGE part in the ministry of Jesus. Women evangelized, supported Him financially, sat at His feet, were first at the resurrection and last at the cross. Women were also huge in Paul's ministry. To cast Paul as a mysogynist is inaccurate and unfair. Women co-labored with him, were missionaries, were entrusted to carry his letters to churches, hosted house churches. Roughly half of the notables in Romans 16 are women. Women were expected to prophesy and pray in public (1Cor 11).

I don't have it all figured out, but if you start with the premise that the Bible is reliable, I think those trying to disprove male leadership in the family and church have the harder task.

[karen (karen)]

John,

I always appreciate your perspective. And I respect your view of the Scriptures—especially since your interpretations shine with spiritual wisdom.

While I think we probably agree on far more than we disagree, I have come to some different conclusions. For one thing, although Jesus upheld the Scriptures, He was always being accused of violating them by the Pharisees. There were numerous examples in the Gospels where Jesus and His disciples did things that went counter to the written word. The Pharisees always hoped these confrontations would reveal Jesus as an enemy of God. However, Jesus used these opportunities to show how God’s Nature was never violated even though the “letter” was indeed seemingly disregarded. When I read the Gospels, I see that Jesus had a high view of the Scriptures, but the Holy Spirit was His Guide. Moreover, He taught us to weigh the Scriptures in light of God’s Nature and always praised people—oftentimes not Israelites—who discerned this truth. On the other hand, the Pharisees didn’t seem to have this transcendent perspective and so were shackled to the jots and tittles. For them, God was nothing more than the Law.

I do think it is interesting how most Christians do not see any contradictions in the Bible. I believe it is riddled with them. For one thing, to return to the previous discussion, is it not a contradiction for God to order the extermination of an entire nation of people when The Ten Commandments expressly forbid murder? If killing children is not murder, I don’t know what is. In this situation, I “weight” the commandment not to kill above the account that says God issued the order to do just the opposite. To “hold” both of these sections in Scripture as equally true leaves open the possibility that God might “command” a similar action today. If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, we are left with NO OTHER conclusion.

I was a fundamentalist in the past. However, when I “accepted” some of the Bible’s contradictions, it required me to harden my heart to accommodate them. I became aware that I would of necessity have to allow my conscience to be seared. Accordingly, I have observed two kinds of fundamentalist Christians—the tender-hearted ones who subconsciously seal off the contradictions and those with hearts of stone who embrace them.

[lmbles (lmbles)]

John, thank you. I appreciated your thoughts about the Bible's infallibility and about the trinity's complimentry roles. I couldn't have said it better (and kinder) myself. Thank you also for expressing the different functions that women do have in the body. They are of no less importance.

Another thought to throw in the mix.

John Piper – “Christians will not fully understand the logic leading to male overseers until they come to grips with what the church really should be as God’s household.”

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Imbles, you've brought some great stuff to this board. I agree with you about a woman's potential in serving God. A woman I know from Cape Cod, Faith Willard, went to Bangladesh and started an INCREDIBLE work with orphans and widows in this poorest Muslim country. Another acquaintance, Elena Bogden, escaped from Communist Romania by swimming the Danube(!), went to seminary, and returned to Romania to plant churches. One of the most close-to-God people I ever heard was Elisabeth Elliot.


Karen, as always thanks for your graciousness.

"There were numerous examples in the Gospels where Jesus and His disciples did things that went counter to the written word."

I would say "counter to the interpretation of the law-experts". Jesus answered by giving the proper interpretation, which He was uniquely qualified to do. He had ample opportunity to resolve matters by saying "verse XYZ is actually not inspired!" but He corrected them by showing them how to understand the Bible, or apply the appropriate Biblical principle. The problem was never with Scripture, it was always with interpretation/application: "You do err, not knowing the Scripture," "You ignore the weightier matters of the law."

From all this it occurs to me that 1) proper interpretation can be difficult, 2) there is a danger of getting crustily legalistic and missing the point, 3) as you say, we need to rely on the Spirit, 4) we need wisdom to know which Biblical truth applies to our situation, 5) we need to be open-minded enough to question our assumptions periodically, 6) different Scriptures can carry different "weight" but still be inspired, and 7) there will likely continue to be controversy.

As for "contradictions", could they be "conundrums"? Did Jesus see the Bible as riddled with contradictions? Is there a middle-ground way to respond to Biblical problems other than denial or heart-hardening?

The question of divinely sanctioned genocide is troubling. One treatment is http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html. You speak of weighing the Scriptures in light of God’s Nature - isn't part of His Nature that of Judge? Jesus pronounced judgment on three unbelieving cities, and on Israel, and often reminded people about the judgment to come.

Can I trust God enough to cause (or permit) the time and manner of birth and death for all of His creatures? Can I trust him to judge justly in this world, and in the world to come when He has the power to destroy body and soul in hell (in Jesus' words)? These are hard things, to be sure.

Jesus also modeled trust in a wonderful way: "Yes, Father, for so it was pleasing in your eyes", "Nevertheless, not My will but Yours be done."

[turtle (turtle)]

I know the discussion of God as judge is off topic, but I like to express my views here. If I believe God ways are justice then we have to except what he chooses to do. What right do I have to kill someone? Am I not playing God when I do this? True only God can place a man in heaven or hell, but to end his life for no rhyme or reason is playing God. God choose when man life will begin as will as end. What right do we have to do this?

[johncollins (johncollins)]

Karen,

I believe your explanation of the "the tender-hearted fundamentalist Christian who subconsciously seals off the contradictions" may explain the issues involved with my questions earlier in this thread, here (http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/15402.html?1133363899#POST227896) and here (http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/15402.html?1133363899#POST228087). In this case, not as much a contradiction within the passage as a contradiction in application in those fundamentalist churches which pledge allegiance to Solo Scriptura in theory, yet seem to actually practice something different.

How many churches have you ever attended where women were not permitted to speak, period? Sure, I've heard many "explanations" for what the passage "means." Jayso gave a great one (http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/15402.html?1133363899#POST228181)!

Yet we've also been admonished that the scriptures were "inspired by the same Spirit who has never contradicted himself and has never inspired an out of date word." Applied to 1 Cor 14, doesn't that mean we can't wiggle out of the "keep silent in the church" admonition?

My questions seem pretty simple to me. I've been advised on this thread to go listen to someone else's sermons, or read other websites to find someone else's answer to my questions. Why? If you feel I'm misrepresenting something, just say so. But please explain it in simple language so even I can understand your logic, okay?

Explain why women are allowed to talk in church at all, for starters.

Maybe a literal interpretation doesn't always mean literal?

The thread began with a question about women preachers. I assume most of us thought of a "pulpit ministry" rather then merely street evangelizing and "preaching" the gospel that way. the question wasn't necessarily about women pastors - that's a related yet separate issue. Cordell, I know you want to make "the issue" YOUR issue. Why not start a separate thread for your issue?

As we've been advised, "The Scriptures are not, however you are inclined to take them in interpretation (if you are honest), a theological salad bar or cafeteria where you eat what you like and leave what you don't. You may be doing that, but don't call it belief, interpretation, theology or faith and expect to be taken seriously."

Maybe I'm missing something when I read this 1 Cor. 14:34-37 passage. It sure appears that at the bare minimum, the application of the passage in every church I've ever been in has not held to a literal interpretation.

Does not allowing women to speak in your church mean your church really is not as literal in applying the scriptures as you profess? Or do you hide behind that old shibboleth of "spirituality"? i.e.: you have some special gnostic revelation which goes beyond the "average" Christian, and thus live above all the rest of us?

This is my third attempt on this issue. That's enough. I have nothing new. The question wasn't answered by anyone in the first place. Nor the second place...

John


ps:
As I reached the point of proofing this prior to posting, John Krainis posted again. okay - I'll go with John's conundrum explanation, and will stop expecting an answer. John - I mean that seriously, not sarcastically, even if it doesn't read as graciously as intended...

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">Start with the idea that Paul had with agape and move on with your words.</font>

Neil,
Explain to me PLEASE, how the agape you speak of leads a man into an adulterous relationship, causes him to abandon his family, go on the internet and beg sympathy from all and sundry while he threatens (it's all about ME) to off himself because his wife rightly leaves him (and in the process stir up all the hens in this house &amp; wastes a pastor's valuable time) --and yet remain unrepentantly in the very relationship that destroyed his marriage? Please do, Dr. Luv tell me about what agape has done for you today. Neil, you are the epitome of the type of man-sans-balls of the feminized church. Next time Neil, just have someone post the obit will you?

(oh dear oh dear aren't you bloody hateful cordell!)

[cordell (cordell)]

Karen you need to read back and see who was marginalizing who in the first place, sweetness. You can be so bloody hypocritical at times.

You may as well be saying that Bozo the Clown, Otis T. Fuddpucker, or Gen. George Armstrong Custer died for your sins. If the Scriptures don't define who Christ is (and you don't get to peck like a hen in a yard which you like and which you don't) then you are left with an empty shell of a Christ. While I certainly agree that one doesn't need to know everything at regeneration, I don't think one can impugn the Scriptures--the same writings that Christ says reveal him and that this is their primary purpose--and still claim to know the Christ therein. The Mormons, JWs, Muslims and every other cult in the world have their 'Jesus'. The Lord himself said this would occur. That is why it is impossible to divide the scriptures into parts that are uninspired and inspired.

They are ALL inspired. And Karen, if you cannot see that God orders the destruction of every man, woman and child in let's say--Jericho or that he orders the entire annihilation of the Amelekites and punishes Saul severely for his disobedience then you are reading a different Bible than the one I am (and on top of that his prophet and judge Samuel hacks Agag to pieces and note how scripture records the event: Then he hacked Agag to pieces <u>before the Lord at Gilgal</u>.

Now, why don't we "project some of these “acts” into our time and place" as you put it? Because we are ruled by Scripture which tells us:

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds...)"

and further: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake."

Why is it any different now? Because the make-up of Israel is different now and the Church is now an occupying force which does spiritual battle. It is up to rulers to punish--not for the church which only has the ability to sanction who partakes of the sacraments and who does not (or to be a part of the congregation and who does not).

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Hateful? Well your approach wouldn't exactly be called lovable, would it? Who is your target audience? and why are you targeting them? Gosh Jim, last night you practically were calling for a reenactment of the Salem Witch Trails.. with Karen first in line. Do you think anyone will listen more closely to what you are preaching about after the above post? Are you trying to keep an audience? Is your plan to win the prize as the person who everyone scrolls by the most?

I think you need to go to the John/Paul Krainis School of the Good Argument. When he speaks I listen, I thoughtfully consider what he is saying. And even if I don't agree every jot and tittle, I sure do want to.

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">Turtle: "I believe woman can preach and also be elders, but there are certain conditions where I think this happens. When there are not strong men in leadership being one. Men should be encourage but some men are just not called to preach. My husband encourages me but I pray for the day that he will lead and maybe preaching is not his gift or teaching isn't his gift."</font>

Very interesting. This is PRECISELY what Carl H. Stevens used to teach--it was his idea of being 'balanced'. He would bring up the image of Kathryn Kuhlman and her 'healing' ministry and quote her as saying that the only reason she was doing it was because no man would answer God's particular call that she did. Then he would bring up the biblical images of Deborah et al.

So, I guess what you are saying is that never mind Scripture or it's directives on the matter it's always our EXPERIENCE which ought to guide us in each situation. Oops.

[cordell (cordell)]

Yes, Jeannie, it is all about being nice.

But I am sure hell is full of nice people.

[turtle (turtle)]

Nope never experience Cordell. I answer the call in Matthew 28 and Mark 16. I was called to teach in Matthew as a disciple of Christ and called to preach as a disciple of Christ. Women were in the upper room on the day of pentecost. Woman were prophesying and speaking how do I know look at what peter said.

Acts 2:17-18
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
It has been said many times by many folks that the Bible is full of contradictions.
I don't believe it is.
I believe that we are the contradiction,at least in our thinking.
Not that there are not some very difficult passages of scripture to understand,there are.
It's just that we're a bit short of mind where it concerns God's sovereignty.

God said kill them all in the old testament and Love your enemy in the new.
A contradiction?
It sure seems as though it is but is it?
Does the Lord contradict Himself?
I do not believe He does.I think we just don't carry the day where it concerns "understanding."

The Lord used a jackass to relay a message to Balaam.
He spoke from a burning bush.
He spoke audibly from heaven when Jesus was baptized,"this is my beloved Son."

He has no limits except that of our free will and even then He does what He wills in spite of ourselves.(don't you just love pressure?)

Of course we cannot discard what scripture says and at the same time we must realise His omnipotence and omniscience concerning His will.
That He has a plan that sometimes seems to be contradictory in its methodology.

Israel looked for the Messiah and then when He arrived He was rejected because they wanted Him to "take over immediately."
When He didn't,they rejected the fact that He fullfulled the prophecies concerning His first coming.
They didn't understand.

All the sum of our knowledge about God,put together,adds up to a grain of sand on all the beaches in the world.

The eyes of our understanding are glazed over by a dark glass that keeps us from seeing clearly.
Still we have this life from Him that is revealed to us through His Holly Spirit.
Not of private interpretation but of collective understanding as a body of one which is Christ's.

Oh,and Jim,
you make me laugh.
(that's a compliment)
There is a very thin veneer that hides that heart of Love that God has given you for the body of Christ.

Bless you all,

Dave

</font>}

[johncollins (johncollins)]

Nice people, good people...

Good People
Jack Johnson

Audio (http://radio.terra.com.br/busca/musicas.php?musica=Good%20People) -- Video (http://www.contactmusic.com/new/home.nsf/webpages/jackjohnsonx06x06x05#) (requires free registration to view video)

Cordell, you win it’s your show now
So what’s it going to be?
Because people will tune in
How many train wrecks do we need to see?
Before we lose touch
And we thought this was low
Well it’s bad, getting worse….

Where’d all the good people go?
I’ve been changing channels and I don’t see them on the tv shows
Where’d all the good people go?
We’ve got heaps and heaps of what we sow

They got this and that with a rattle a tat
Testing, one, two, man whatcha gonna do
Bad news misused, got too much to lose
Give me some truth now, who’s side are we on
Whatever you say
Turn on the boob tube, I’m in the mood to obey
So lead me astray
And by the way now…

Where’d all the good people go?
I’ve been changing channels and I don’t see them on the tv shows
Where’d all the good people go?
We’ve got heaps and heaps of what we sow

Sitting around feeling far away
So far away but I can feel the debris, can you feel it?
You interrupt me from a friendly conversation
To tell me how great it’s all going to be
You might notice some hesitation
Because its important to you, it’s not important to me
But way down by the edge of your reason
It’s beginning to show and all I really want to know is…

Where’d all the good people go?
I’ve been changing channels and I don’t see them on the tv shows
Where’d all the good people go?
We got heaps and heaps of what we sow

They got this and that with a rattle a tat
Testing one, two man whatcha gonna do
Bad news misused give me some truth
You got too much to lose
Whose side are we on today, anyway
Okay, whatever you say
Wrong and resolute but in the mood to obey
Station to station desensitizing the nation
Where’d all the good people go?
Going, going, gone

[nonotone (nonotone)]

The Bible does have *apparent* contradictions. However, I believe that most of them can be resolved through extensive study in the original languages, culture, etc. - but perhaps more than anything through Biblically-based Systematic Theology that recognizes Christ as the locus of all of Scripture (as in Luke 24:25-27, 44-47).

However, in order to fully accept the testimony of Scripture one must also abdicate personal autonomy and acknowledge the supremecy and glorious wisdom of the Godhead in all the marvelous facets both revealed in Scripture and in nature.


Brian Bowman
John 3:21

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Respectfully Brian and I understand what you are saying, but my mind goes immediately to the homeless and addicted I encounter almost daily...I believe God would not withold revealing Himself fully to someone who could not overcome literacy barriers in order to study extensively.

So do I tell them their getting to know God depends on finding a teacher who can study things in a way they cannot, someone to mediate for them...I think God has many venues for revealing the truth that is in His word to individuals....He has to, knowing the disparities that exist in societies.

I don't know about "abdicating personal autonomy" either....God gave me autonomy in that no other person can ever fully understand me or know me as He can and does. I understand that essentially I am dependant upon Him for my very breath, since I do not provide the air I breathe or control the mechanism with which I do breathe.


For me to rely on the conclusions of another in lieu of my own limitations in terms of the original languages etc..., may not be the thing most pleasing to God...He may well have another
road for me to take to grow in understanding that leads to life, not just knowledge.
Any way, often people deem those to be good teachers who say things that they are inclined to believe any way...that is human nature.
Our walk with God is essentially a solitary one, because at any given moment He may take us out from the authority of even godly men, for reasons entirely unknown to ourselves and others...
The real communion I have experienced is with those who share this private, personal, autonomous walk with God, the more real He becomes to them personally, the less walls they have up towards the unique experiences of others.
In our apartness and uncommon experience of God,
our survival stories, lies a sweet comraderie.

I just think it is natural and healthy to have doubts and questions about the Scriptures, it keeps us from settling down too easily...I do not think resolution of these apparent contradictions should be that central to our purpose, but moving forward in faith and in love even as we wrestle with hard questions...Isn't it faith that pleases Him...sometimes when I listen to all the debates, I think some feel it is studying that please Him...He is past finding out, isn't He? In that sense, I acknowledge Him as supreme because all the things I may never understand will find their ultimate resolution in Christ, according to His timetable not my diligence. Just a few thoughts...the more complicated the arguments get, the less I want to put on my theological cap and the more I just want to respond to the things that have borne witness to my heart about the love of God...I am about to deliberately pursue an entirely secular course of study and I expect to see Him revealed on every page, even if it was written by an agnostic...after all, that agnostic has God's creation stamped all over him, unless he was manufactured elsewhere.

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Simply stated...I have been in rooms where people fellowship around the same "beliefs" and yet they are self-cenetered show-offs...ggwo case in point...mutual admiration society...but they could all quote the same things....

Then I have been where people gathered who may not have the same doctrinal positions, but there was only one goal, to connect with the spirit...not a competition of one-up-man-ship...

So, if I were stranded on an island and had to choose between two potential companions, one being a world class theologian with all the greek and hebrew down....and perhaps someone like Corrie Ten Boom who saw His faithfulness in the concentration camps, someone whose main ministry had been a bible study for the mentally retarded; and more importantly a woman saved from succumbing to the internal cancer of hate, bitterness, and despair...I would choose Corrie Ten Boom without blinking.
Perhaps it is only a matter of orientation. I don't know....but I know without a doubt...it would be Corrie Ten Boom.
And I think her life is a theological treatise few could argue with.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Individual walk with the Lord;
John 21:21-22 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

Put them all together and they make the Bride of Christ.

Aren't God's ways more than brilliant?


Dave

</font>}

[nonotone (nonotone)]

Respectfully Brian and I understand what you are saying, but my mind goes immediately to the homeless and addicted I encounter almost daily...I believe God would not withold revealing Himself fully to someone who could not overcome literacy barriers in order to study extensively.

Pat, your words are so true! That's exactly why Christ calls all of us to be "living epistles". The vast majority of humankind will not (for whatever reason) study at the level that you and I are familiar with, yet we can reveal (often without "big words") the nature of Christ to them - and leave the results to the Holy Spirit.

When I lived in Baltimore and did street outreach at Fell's Point, etc., one of my favorite things was spending time ministering to homeless men by purchasing them a meal, etc. No, this did not always "sit well" with many of the "outreach leaders", but the witness in my heart and the testimony of Scripture taught me otherwise.

Also, I think you're aware that I work in a high-tech environment - amoung an unusually high concentration of "well-educated" people. It has been my experience that the "literacy rate" when it comes to understanding the God revealed in Scripture is not necessarily higher at my workplace than it is amoung the homeless in Fell's Point!

On the issue of personal autonomy in its various manifestations - well this is a clear dividing line for many folks - especially in the so-called "feminist debate" as well as the classic "Arminian vs. Calvinist" debate.

For a truly genuine treatment of this and other theo-philosophical issues look no further than Van Til's Apologetic (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0875520987/qid=1133427781/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5133216-0372011?n=507846&amp;s=books&amp;v=glance) by the 20th Century luminary Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen (now deceased). FWIW, in addition to two advanced Theology Degrees from Westiminster Philly (where he was perhaps Van Til's greatest student), Bahnsen possessed a PhD in Philosophy from University of Southern Californina where he did his dissertation on "A Conditional Resolution for the Apparent Contradiction of Self-Deception". This work, from a high-respected secular university, was lauded by his overseeing professor as "a brilliant work in the field of epistimology"

I'm sure you can find it in the many fine libraries in your fair city of Boston. For now here is a great primer on this work:

<u>http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa207.htm


Kind Regards,


Brian Bowman
John 3:21</u>

(Message edited by nonotone on December 01, 2005)

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

John Collins,

No sarcasm taken, but a good question deserves at least an attempt at an answer.

I think your question is, when women say "good morning" or sing or sneeze in Bible believing churches, are not these churches violating the command of 1Cor 14:34-35 "women should keep silent in church"?

The straightforward answer is no, because the verses are viewed as limited and local, not as a universally binding gag order. This understanding is based on ch 11 where women are using their vocal chords praying and prophesying. In ch 12, women and men receive spiritual gifts, some of which are speaking gifts. In ch 14, presumably women are bringing hymns, revelations etc. Women were active participants in the early church, so the prohibition must be limited rather than universal. Another indication of its limited nature is the lack of provision for the unmarried and widows (who obviously can't ask their husbands).

Paul's letters were written to specific people in a specific time and setting. One of our jobs is differentiating between the temporary cultural material and that which is timeless. For verses that are cultural, we can look for abiding principles, for instance with "obey the king", we obviously can't woodenly follow the words on the page (pack our stuff, move to Jordan, and start obeying King Hussein), but an abiding principle might be to be a good citizen, participate in the democratic process etc. Earlier in ch 14, there is a section about regulating the gift of tongues so that visiters wouldn't think the church was "out of its mind". An abiding principle might be sensitivity to unchurched folk, and the point you made elsewhere about not using inscrutable Christian jargon might fall in this category. An abiding principle for your text might be, keep church meetings from getting disorderly or unseemly.

Another interesting possibility is that verses 34-35 are a misguided Corinthian solution to their problem with disorderly meetings, which Paul refutes in verse 36. This as you know is a pattern in the letter.

Off topic, it is noteworthy how little instruction there is in the Bible on how to "do church". Presumably this is so local churches can find a format and style which match their personality and culture.

I don't know if the above is what you were looking for, and if there is more behind your question I'd be interested to hear.

(Message edited by john krainis on December 01, 2005)

[lmbles (lmbles)]

Sojourner,

I hear what you're saying. Though I'm not necessarily attempting to answer anything, I thought I'd muse on the subject as well.

We've seen a lot of people with their noses in their Bible and puffed up in self-apprecation but unable (or unwilling) to really live the truth in its purist form. I suppose I'd take simplicity over intellectual pride anyday. It's definately something we all have to guard against. I know that I personally tend to think that if something confuses me, I just have to study it further. I tend to rely on intellectual capacities rather than simply draw near to the person of Christ. I'm learning the balance.

I do believe that the Spirit in us does illuminate the Word, if we're honestly searching. It might take time, and it might even include hearing from other people, sometimes conflicting views, and sorting it out in our own prayer life. But we do have the responsibility to stand before God on our own, and that includes studying to show ourselves approved. I think God will meet us wherever we are, no matter what resources we have available to us or at whatever "literary" or reasoning capacity we have. The deep calls to the deep. Truth has a certain sound. We don't need to depend or rely on someone else's interpretation... and yet if we are ignorant of the ways of God, we would do well to avail ourselves of what others have already studied or their abilities of discernment, as we ourselves are becoming disciples of Christ (and students of His written Word).

It'll be rocky for all of us to search Him out, and of course we don't know anything the way we ought to, and we won't see through the glass clearly, but in the process I think we'll come closer to knowing if what we read or what we're being taught is consistent with Christ's nature, and we'll be driven to the Word to study it further.

I'm learning that intellectualizing God's Word can NEVER be divorced from His character, and should never get so narrow that we compromise the WHOLE counsel of God. I'm less inclinded these days to find one verse as a proof text and tear it apart, but I am still drawn to the Word to get the BIG picture. In GG we were taught LOTS of categorical doctrine. We had everything nicely labeled and defined. We could ramble off a million verses about anything, and even probably quote one of Carl's doctrine booklets to back up what we were saying. Aside from being slightly arrogant in our knowledge, I think we were also lacking something else. The structure of understanding. We had lots of nice doctrine, but we didn't know where to put any of it, or how they connected. Each isolated doctrine never revealed the fullness of God's created design, his ultimate purpose for mankind and the beautiful harmony of the roles within each institution (free will, family, church, gov't).

Yes, I do think it's a mystery, and sometimes we're left to marvel at what we don't understand, but I think sometimes that as we dig in and pursue to understand, we're definately blessed by seeing facets of eternal things that we've never considered before. So we may not have an answer right away. It might take time to meditate on things, and even really challenge the things we thought were true. But if we're steadfast in seeking Him, and honest in our search (not just trying to find what we want in the Bible, but hearing from both sides..) then I think he'll soon make Himself known, at least a shade closer to truth.

We're more succeptible to being deceived when our motives are colored by personal gain, abdicating our responsibility, elevating man above truth, etc. That's why I keep stressing an HONEST search. It always comes down to us and Christ... not a man-made system. I used to get SOOO angry when I'd ask questions at raps and they'd say, "Well.. our ministry believes that..." or "Carl Stevens has taught us that..." What about the rest of the Christian world out there? Tell me what the issues are, and let me go to scripture or draw from other author's insight if I want. If I trusted those in GG, I'd certainly appreaciate hearing their reasoning as well, but don't rob me of the opportunity to study and show myself approve and be persuaded by God.

So I want to be responsible with what He's given me to press on and know Him, but I want it to be so real to my life that I can practically live and show Him to whoeveris in my path. It is a delicate balance that I think you alluded to. It's never just a simple quick-fix formula or pat answer or canned package of verses.. but we also can't get so overwhelmed that we discard the theology that puts heavenly truths into earthly words.

Sorry if that rambling didn't make much sense. Haven't had coffee yet. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[karen (karen)]

Jim,
You’re right. My initial off-hand comment was intentionally provocative. Guilty as charged. However, this was in response to scores of your posts that were also intentionally provocative. Your repeated referrals to women in demeaning ways, such as “hens” as well as a reposting of the Knox essay were bait. And regretfully, I finally succumbed. But I’m backing off now, because we all know that discussion between us is fruitless. You are a rage-aholic who feeds off violent confrontations so you can justify your abuse. So rage away. I’m not biting anymore.

John Krainis,
I’m with Jeannie. Even if I don’t agree with everything you say, I sure want to.

John Collins,
I’d love to continue this conversation off the board. May I e-mail you? BTW-I remember you from Lenox though we didn’t know each other well.

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Brian,

Thank you for your intelligent and gracious response...this kind of dialogue is precisely what was so lacking in ggwo...I appreciate your taking the effort to list resources that may be helpful.

Imbles,
I could never have written that without coffee! You really do have a thoughtful presence and voice on this forum. It encourages me that you have been set free from all the group think of ggow and now the work of God in you can reveal hope to others.

John Kranis,
You sir, are a statesman in the best sense of the word, you are the genuine article and I just want to say hello.

I am going back to school(it strongly appears) which is so daunting at my age and with ADD that I just started getting help with this past year. And i didn't need bifocals when I was 18, so if I am not chiming in, it will be due to other priorities...time to get a life!
Today I apply for direct school funds, if you want to pray I qualify, you have my permission!
Patricia

[karen (karen)]

Patricia, I tried to e-mail you, but the messages kept bumping back to me. You've obviously got an Internet connection, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I'll try again later.

[jeannie (jeannie)]

This is a very good discussion thread. I would hate to loose your input, Karen.

Jim you completely missed my point. I am not sure it was intentional to gloss over my post and marginalize the content to being about "nice." In case it wasn't intentional, I will reiterate my point once again. Who is your target audience? And if it is the posters and the readers, wouldn't it be wiser to communicate in a different manner? Napalm does not a convert make.

I can't help but wonder if your scorch and burn method derives from some other personal issues you fail to recognize. You have an audience here who is seeking further understanding on this subject. We are thoughtfully listening to each other. Why would you continue this method when it is obviously going to cause the audience to scroll past what you have to say? You are your own worst enemy so why not change your methods?

This discussion is about the role of women. I wonder if you would agree that women tend to be more insightful into the inner workings of the human nature. Maybe we are a little more "tuned in" into the "whys" behind the actions. Why do you think we watch Oprah? So before you gloss over this post, consider listening to the content and maybe, just maybe, to submit to the spirit of my words... even if I am just a woman.

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Hi Karen,
I am going to be gone most of the day but keep trying the email...some servers are not getting through to msn for some reason...another friends emails have been delayed for several hours...I'll send you an empty email to test it again from my end. I have no idea how to resolve these things.
Thanks for letting me know...

[toolmahass (toolmahass)]

I’ll solve the mystery for ya folks, WHO THE <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> CARES!?

[boss_martian (boss_martian)]

I'm inclined to agree with you on this one, toolmahass.

I don't care WHO does the preaching, only about WHAT they're preaching.

From what I've experienced, MOST people who want to keep the women silent (notice I said MOST, and they're usually men) because "the Bible said so" are a little bit insecure. Again, I'm no Bible scholar (and reading this forum sure doesn't "lead" me to become one), but that's what I see. I don't see this issue as being much different than my Southern Baptist brothers and sisters insisting that owning slaves in America was Biblical.

I'm ready to take my Biblical butt-whipping......

[lee (lee)]

Well, I care!!!

I happen to think that this topic deserves more thoughtfulness than it has been given in our churches and hoped that we could discuss it with respect, BUT once again, Jim has taken it upon himself to degrade us by calling us hens and onions.

I've taken enough bashing around in life, thankyou, I will not take anymore.

Everytime you belittle my friend Karen it hurts, Jim. Your utter distain for her questions and struggles, which she honestly uncovers here, is disrespectful and more than unkind. In your bubble world Jim, there is evidently no room for research, exploration and growth. Evidently, even here, you believe that women should be taught by you, and if we don't agree meekly, then we are subject to your ridicule. You are wrong.

Tool, I care, because, I'd like to learn something more about this subject. Why can't we learn from others and discuss it without it dissolving into abuse?

Jim, please stop.

To others that have made a thoughtful contribution, thank you. I hope to learn more than I know this moment.

[boss_martian (boss_martian)]

Well said, Lee.

It is also my belief that focusing on WHO does the preaching can easily lead to the situation at GGWO.

It doesn't matter one bit to the GGWO faithful what Carl rants/mumbles/drools out of his mouth. After all, it's CARL STEVENS, THE ANNOINTED, and since each and every word out of his mouth is annointed, who are we to question it? To the GGWO faithful, it doesn't matter how rational, orthodox or TRUTHFUL a message is. If it didn't come from Carl (or one of his henchmen), it is "off".

The message is more important than the messenger.

[sidethorn (sidethorn)]

Right on Boss!!

Only Carl and his inner circle have the real truth. After all, since they are perfect, anyone who disagrees with them is disagreeing with God. So just agree with all their messages and you're doing well. They are the special and anointed ones, so always show them the worship they're due with your standing ovations and your unquestioning obedience. YEAH, RIGHT!!!!!!

Sadly at GGWO its all about the messenger; just believe any message he gives without even thinking about it!!

[phil (phil)]

It seems that it would be quite dificult for everyone to agree on this subject but it is a great conversation and worth the trouble. The day we left TBS was a liberating day as we no longer had to be right on everything. There was a theological world out there to discover, people to read and different streams in the body of Christ to get to know. What poise and kindness many of you have shown in sharing some very painful experiences in your TBS/GGWO time.

There seems to many issues like this that demand some posture other then "this is what it says and this is what it means " as men and women who are seasoned thinkers, scholars and writers do not agree. I have come to a place in my christian journey that I am very comfortable with dynamic tension concerning faith and theology. For example, healing - I belive that God can and does heal people. I've prayed for people and then done their funerals...Does God or does He not Heal???? Yes!!! He does its in the Bible, its happened all throughout history, it is happening today around the world and then your aunt is sick and passes quickly though you prayed for her with great faith. Has the Kingdom of God come or has it not??? Yes!! It is, but not yet!!
I am very comfortable walking out this journey in a certain level of mystery but I have to admit it would be easier if God was as black and white as some of our friends on this thread think. (I only feel that for a fleeting moment) and then I am back to the world of discovery!!! Paul could have saved us a lot of discussion on the subject of women in leadership but with a rye grin on the face of the Holy Spirit it was penned in the manner that we are dealing with today. I am thrilled to see so many women that have found their voice and have stirred up the gifts that God has bestowed on His people. I like the way God does this to us little earthlings....

[cordell (cordell)]

Lee as you will have seen from Karen's response to John K above--it does not matter whether one is nice-nice or bad-bad. Karen has quite made her mind up and I quite accept that.

Lee it is interesting who you choose to scold--it is always perfectly OK for some to be marginalized as "fundies" or "literalists" but when the gun is aimed in the opposite direction what a lot of whining (or cacklin') occurs!

I actually thought onions was more lovable than cabbages--my bad.

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff"> Turtle: Nope never experience Cordell. I answer the call in Matthew 28 and Mark 16. I was called to teach in Matthew as a disciple of Christ and called to preach as a disciple of Christ. Women were in the upper room on the day of pentecost. Woman were prophesying and speaking how do I know look at what peter said.</font>

Yertle my darling you again overstep the bounds of the text. Although both passages compel all Christians to be preachers of the faith once delivered to the saints as partakers of the offices of Christ (Prophet, Priest and King) NEITHER of the passages speak to women being elders or occupying a teaching office over men.

Let's not read into the passage.

[turtle (turtle)]

Cordell I also look at historical aspect of a text not just literal interpetation do you???? Paul could not of allowed women to preach at the time in the church it was forbidden for women to speak publicly.

[cordell (cordell)]

Well John C. here is an opening to discuss your passages.

Let's think about these passages first:

<font color="0000ff">Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, <u>as also saith the law.</u></font>

Where does the law thus saith?

Is Paul saying that this is still in force?

Consider (This passage is long, but instructive):

<font color="0000ff">Numbers 30:3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; 4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.

5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. 6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.

9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. 10 And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; 11 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.

12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her.

13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, <u>her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. 14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them</u>. 15 But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity. 16 These are the statutes, <font color="ff0000">which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father's house.</font></font>

Shock of shocks! I would hold that this passage is still applicable based on the Corinthian passages, the passages in the pastoral epistles, the Ephesian passage on marriage and this interesting passage in 1 Cor. 7 which is necessary Paul says because of the perilous times:

<font color="0000ff">36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.</font>

This passage apparently gives the father of a daughter authority to give or withold permission to marry.

(Message edited by cordell on December 01, 2005)

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">Turtle:Paul could not of allowed women to preach at the time in the church it was forbidden for women to speak publicly.</font>

So your claim is that Paul is stopping the wimmin from talkin' because it ain't 'lowed? That's novel. Why then does he appeal to the LAW of GOD?
(see above)

[turtle (turtle)]

9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. 10 And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; 11 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.

Husband also has the right to not permit his wife to keep a vow. But if he allows it then there is no problem. Funny thing my husband does not mind me preaching or teaching. He wouldn't have a problem me pastoring. In fact he encourages it.

[turtle (turtle)]

Actually I see my husband and I as partners in ministry. He may not be gifted to preach or teach but he has other gifts that balance mine. It is almost has if we are two halves put together by God. And the truth be known God knew we were right for each other.

[turtle (turtle)]

Simple fact is even in old testament days women were consider property. They had full say of what a wife could and could not do. Paul overstepping the authority of a women and allowing her to speak would of been taboo. Today it is not a problem.

[cordell (cordell)]

Turtle, please join the "that was then, this is now" club. See RJ for your secret decoder ring.

Dearie, Paul appeals to CREATION and GOD'S order in it as well as the LAW. This is not a matter of the "times" of 'yesterday' or 'today'--God does not get out of date, he is Eternal.

[louise_connolly (louise_connolly)]

Yes, there women desperate to marry a man any man, hence, Cordell/Jim found two victims in his Holier than thou life.

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">Turtle: It is almost has if we are two halves put together by God. And the truth be known God knew we were right for each other.</font>

When two turtles get together they kinda look like a walnut right?

[godchild (godchild)]

Every man should be grateful that God allows women to teach. All those women are their Mothers.

[cordell (cordell)]

WEEZIEE! You little poison leprachaun--glad to see you're out from under your toadstool!

Now do we really want to start countin' dance partners lil' sunshine? Even if we haven't MARRIED them--do the daddies count? So how many victims of the weez have there been? (or were YOU the victim--twice?)

You might want to think twice ever letting Mrs. Cordell hear you refer to her as a victim. Ask TOPW if Mrs. C is a 'victim' of anything.

(Message edited by cordell on December 01, 2005)

[cordell (cordell)]

godchild I made that point earlier as well.

[turtle (turtle)]

Sorry don't need a ring to look into history or into the present. And hopefully if you put turtles together it looks more like a almond. Turtles are not as round as walnuts. Or maybe a pecan.

[turtle (turtle)]

cordell just doesn't want to see a woman elder or pastor. He let them preach but not as elder or a pastor.

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

WHAT A PLACE TO GIVE MY TWO CENTS. CORDELL, I WILL AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS POINT, WHICH I BELIEVE LINES UP WITH GOD'S OUTDATED WORD. LOL.
SORRY, BUT IF I PASTOR AGAIN I WON'T BE INVITING ANY WOMEN PASTOR'S TO PREACH UNLESS IT'S WOMEN'S NIGHT. I'M NOT A CHAVANISTIC OR WHATEVER, BECAUSE WE CAN ALL SEE SCRIPTURE IN DIFFERENT LIGHTS. IF ALL AGREED, THERE WOULD NEVER BE ANY DENOMINATIONS. BUT " CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG" OR AS SOMBODY SAID " COME, LET US REASON TOGETHER." I THINK THIS IS AS GOOD A MEASURING STICK AS ANY. STUDY WHAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING, EXTENSIVLEY, THOUROUGHLY, COMPLETLY, THEN PRAY, AND PRAY SOME MORE, AND THEN PRAY SOME MORE AND ASK GOD'S SPIRIT TO GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH. THAT IS ALL ANY OF US CAN DO. I ONCE DIDN'T BELIEVE IN ETERNAL SECURITY. I ARGUED IN THE OLD "GRACE HOME" ON FLEET STREET FOR HOURS WITH A BUNCH FROM MBC&amp;S. WHEN I LEFT WITH A PASTOR FRIEND OF MINE WHO AT THE TIME WAS IN CHARGE OF SAID MINISTRY HE ASK ME TO DO ONE THING. "GO HOME, AND ASK THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHAT FATHER IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD THROW THEIR OWN CHILD IN AN INCINERATOR FOR ETERNITY" I PRAYED FOR HOURS AND IN THE MOURNING, GOT MY ANSWER. NO FATHER IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD TOSS HIS SON IN AN INCINERATOR NO MATTER WHAT THE CRIME. MY ANSWER DIDN'T COME FROM SCRIPTURE, MAN, WOMEN, DONKEY, BUT THE SPIRIT (HIMSELF) MAYBE THAT IS WHY IT IS SAID THAT THE LETTER KILLS, BUT IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT GIVES LIFE, DON'T CHA THINK? NOW CORDELL ON THE OTHER SUBJECT I'VE E-MAILED YOU ABOUT, I AM STILL STUDYING, BUT THE LORD IS LEADING ME IN ANOTHER DIRECTION AS THE ONE YOU SUPPORT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT'S FINE WITH ME, IF THAT'S O.K. WITH YOU. IS THERE ANYONE BESIDE GOD THAT HAS A WRAP ON THE TRUTH. " LET GOD BE TRUE, AND EVERYMAN A LIAR" I HOPE THE SCRIPTURES MEANT WOMEN TOO IN THAT VERSE!LOL http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/proud.gif

[turtle (turtle)]

gone_to_pa, What if your congretion wants to here a women speak and it isn't women's nite. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

If there is one point that this discussion has proven to many is that Cordell does NOT have the gift of pastoring.

I love you my friend and brother and this you know well. But your unfunny put downs and misconduct toward those here to have disagreed with you is not what a true man of God would do. You sound exactly like Carl. These are the wqays he speaks to and about the brethern in private and sometimes in public.

You are now over the line and abusive in your treatment of those who converse with you here. This is NOT about being nice...it is about comon courtesey, respect of the brethern.

You will of course find these comments from me laughable and will hurl more nasty jubes. I am sorry that you have not progressed further than this little boy school yard bully stuff. It is sad to see you, a man with a heart for God...or so you sat you have...treat others with such shameful ungodly abuse.

For make no mistake...if you are right or wrong on the point about women makes no difference...your abusive behavior is a shameful and tragic thing to watch.

I love you. Please, please stop this. You sound far too much like Carl to be a good witness this way. Can you not see this is NOT about the feminization of anything...it is common caring for other believers.

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

TURTLE,

Women pastors / preachers? What does the Bible say about women in ministry?





Click here for an MP3 audio version of this page.



Question: "Women pastors / preachers? What does the Bible say about women in ministry?"



Answer: There is perhaps not a more debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors / preachers in ministry. As a result, it is very important to not view this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe that women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women - and there are men who believe that women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of Biblical interpretation.



1 Timothy 2:11-12 proclaims, “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.” In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created (1 Timothy 2:13) and the way in which sin entered the world (2 Timothy 2:14). God, through the Apostle Paul’s writing, restricts women from serving in roles of spiritual teaching authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.



There are many "objections" to this view of women in ministry / women pastors. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education was a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus' disciples likely would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the Ephesian women from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek / Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.



A third common objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 could refer to husbands and wives. However, the basic meaning of the words are men and women. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to men and women in general, not only husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a switch to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.



Yet another frequent objection to this interpretation of women pastors / preachers is in relation to Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, Phoebe, etc. - women who held positions of leadership in the Bible. This objection fails to note some significant factors. In relation to Deborah, she was the only female judge amongst 13 male judges. In relation to Huldah, she was the only female prophet amongst dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was due to her being the sister of Moses and Aaron. The two most prominent women in the times of the Kings were Athaliah and Jezebel - hardly examples of godly female leadership.



In the Book of Acts, chapter 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla's name is mentioned first, likely indicating that she was more "prominent" in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).



In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a "deaconess" instead of a "servant" - that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. "Able to teach" is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders / bishops / deacons are described as "husband of one wife," "a man whose children believe," and "men worthy of respect." In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders / bishops / deacons.



The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the "reason" perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with "for" and gives the "cause" of what Paul stated in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because - "Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived." That is the reason. God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a "helper" for Adam. This order of Creation has universal application to humanity in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable...but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.



Women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching and helps. Much of the ministry of the church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted to public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only to having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians chapter 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the Gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).



God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership – in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This logically would include women serving as pastors / preachers. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with how God has gifted them.

Recommended Resource: Women and Men In Ministry: A Complementary Perspective by Robert Saucy &amp; Judy TenElshof.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Topics: TURTLE, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? LOVE AND PEACE GTP

[the_one_post_wunderkind (the_one_post_wunderkind)]

The Big Picture can never be discarded when focusing on the little picture. The forest contains the trees and the trees make up the forest. I rejoice in the diversity of the forest. In God's creation are beauty, majesty and mystery.

Now, suppose that in a certain forest there are both majestic pines and mighty oaks. Both trees contribute to the beauty of the forest, mighty and majestic are the works of our God. Would it be wise for the oak to compare himself with the pine? Should the pine compare herself with the oak?

Can the oak say: "Hey, I want to make pine cones like the pine tree, I can do it better...I shall pick pine cones off the ground and cover myself with them, so I can be a majestic pine tree?

Can the pine say: "Hey, I want to be an oak tree and make acorns, I can do it better...I shall pick acorns off the ground and cover myself with them, so I can be a mighty oak."

Is the glory of the oak any less magnificent than the glory of the pine? Are not the pine and the oak both wonderful and important trees? All the pine cones in the forest will not make the oak an effective pine tree. All the acorns in the forest will not change the pine into an effective oak. Even if all the pines and oaks in the forest say, "What a marvelous job you are doing Mr. Oak in your role as a pine! What a marvelous job you are doing Mrs. Pine in your role as an oak! Wow, you are both doing a great job!"

When the Scriptures speak from Genesis to Revelation on the roles of women and men in the church, we can pick up all the pine cones and acorns we want...and, we can even write appealing reasons on why it is proper to place pine cones on the oak and acorns on the pine. And, many can applaud our modern approaches as enlightened and an idea that has come of age.

However, all the coverings of pine cones on an oak tree will not make it function as a pine tree. All the coverings of acorns on a pine tree will not make it function as an oak. Even if we claim it is so.

To that end, I would no sooner put a pine cone on an oak tree or an acorn on a pine tree than, in regard to the church, put a man in the office of a teacher to instruct younger woman on how to be good mothers and wives; or, for that matter, put a woman in the office of elder to administrate the Father's household. And that is not err, 'wooden' literalism.

Oaks are oaks and pines are pines. Men are men and women are women. If we walk through the entire forest of scripture we must not pause at one tree and condemn the entire forest because it is not to our liking or understanding. I thank God for men and women and how our Creator has made us majestic and mighty in our own ways to serve the church for HIS purpose.

Peace and Grace to all who seek the scriptural forest through the trees,
topw

[lmbles (lmbles)]

GTP - Thanks for posting that article. It was very clear and concise.

Just thought I'd add one thing to it. Everyone loves to say, "What about Deborah?" In studying this, I saw that her role was different than the other judges. She was the only judge with no military function. She didn't lead Israel into battle, but God wanted Barak to do that, so she gave priority to a man. In vs 8 (of Judges 4) she rebukes him because of his relectance and says that as a result, the glory will go to a woman. And she wasn't even speaking about herself, she was speaking about Jael. Deborah didn't assert her leadership and she didn't prophesy in public like all the other prophets. She ministered in private through individual instruction. In vs. 4 it says that people came to her for judgment.

Furthermore, Old Testemant prophesy is a spontaneous revelation or impression, whereas teaching is the sustained, orderly exposition of received revelation. It was the priests that had authoritative instruction. Women may have functioned as prophets in the OT, but not as priests. They function as prophets and deacons in the NT, but not as elders. And even when they did prophesy in the NT, they did it with a demeanor that recognized she was under her husband's authority. That's what the whole symbol of head covering was all about.. an outward sign that she understood what God intended in her marriage. Her submission gave her freedom to be more vocal in the church. By the way, note that in 1 Cor 14 the context about being silent was regarding interpreting prophecy. There are many areas where we as christians restrain our "liberties" for the sake of order. Even Priscilla's role wasn't a public, authoritative position of leadership. Women have incredible gifts and should be serving the body, but God designed it to be a helping, complementary role, for the sake of his order and purpose.

Many of us have alluded to the fact that these gender distinctions have their basis in God's created order, not in culture. (TOPW I loved your post..) Even Paul refers back to creation, not the fall. Women are made for the sake of helping their husbands. I really think this is an important point. It would do us well to understand a husbands's headship in the family, in order to more clearly see their function in church leadership. If we understand what it means for him to be a shepherd of his family and a servant leader, then it'll make more sense about the role of an elder (leader in the church). Their job is NOT merely to teach the Bible, though that is involved. They must be a worthy example to follow as overseers of the flock with their experience and wisdom. They provide and protect, by teaching the whole counsel of God (and training others how to be disciples of the Word themselves) and guarding against false doctrine (equipping them by teaching how to discern, not censoring or attacking anyone different). As a leader, they encourage the full development and use of others' gifts and abilities. This is all necessary for a father to do as head of his family and training his children. Of course, this is with the wife's help, but he's ultimately responsible. (Notice how many times the Bible directs parenting advice to the father.)

Of course, this requires the church to operate in a more intimate and natural (and Biblical) way. Instead of fathers abdicating their responsibility and constantly sending their kids off to the "expert" Sunday School teachers or becoming so consumed with ministry that his children aren't even involved with him, he instead ought to continue to exercise authority over his family in the church setting. And church should be a place where people interact and share their lives, not just warm a pew listening to a sermon or being entertained. Each member should be actively involved, exercising their gifts and ministering to one another, not just passive onlookers. This way, male leaders can easily be acknowledged as capable male leaders. It works much better then sending young men off to school for four years to get a Bible college degree and then automatically promoting them because of their title.

1 Timothy 3:4-6 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

THANK YOU IMBLES,
TURTLE I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. IT WOULDN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT THE CONGREGATION WANTED. THE QUESTION WILL ALWAYS BE, DOES IT LINE UP WITH GOD'S WORD. MY INTERPRETATION OF GOD'S WORD LINES UP WITH THE ABOVE POST OF MINE. THANKS FOR ASKING THOUGH.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Phil,

I loved what you said about "walking out this journey in a certain level of mystery." I love the word "mystery" because it conotates not having arrived. There is something very authentic about believers who admit they are still seeking. We are all mere humans and not incarnate gods... we never arrive on this earth. We are fellow travelers on the journey and I would rather sit by the fire and receive from my brothers and sisters than trek up to the castle to meet with the few that think they have already arrived. Jesus was always on the road.. even after the resurrection... He met people on their journey.

I believe in the sacredness and inerrancy of the Word of God. The Word may be black and white and in this form it can hold questions. But is in "walking out the journey" where it becomes less mysterious. It is in humility and living authentically where the scriptures become real and less mysterious. There is a Hasidic story of a rabbi who taught his people if they studied the Torah, it would put scripture on their hearts. One of them asked "Why on our hearts and not in them? and the rabbi answered "Only God can put Scripture inside. But reading sacred text can put it on your hearts, and when your heart breaks, the holy words fall inside."

It is on this journey called life; in our heartaches, in our exchanges with other's heartaches where the sacred written words mingle with our hearts. Maybe that is the difference between those who believe they have all the answers and those willing to leave the mystery for the long journey to reveal.

[rightorwrong (rightorwrong)]

THE U.S. IS THE WORLD'S LEADER IN FATHERLESS HOMES.
63% OF YOUTH SUICIDES ARE FROM FATHERLESS HOMES.
90% OF ALL HOMELESS AND RUNAWAY CHILDREN ARE FROM FATHERLESS HOMES.
71% OF ALL HIGHSCHOOL DROP OUTS COME FROM FATHERLESS HOMES.
85% OF YOUTH SITTING IN PRISON GREW UP IN FATHERLESS HOMES.
75% OF ALL ADOLESCENT PATIENTS IN CHEMICAL ABUSE CENTERS COME FROM FATHERLESS HOMES.
80% OF RAPISTS MOTIVED WITH DISPLACED ANGER COME FROM FATHERLESS HOMES.
40% OF CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN FATHERLESS HOMES HAVEN'T SEEN THEIR FATHERS IN OVER A YEAR.
AN ESTIMATED 24.7 MILLION CHILDREN LIVE ABSENT THEIR BIOLOGICAL FATHERS.

WHO REALLY CARES WHO PREACHES? HOW ABOUT GETTING OUT AND JUST DO GODS WORK!!! HOW ABOUT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY.

[lmbles (lmbles)]

Interesting that you brought that into the conversation..

I was just reading some statistics today about boys whose fathers are either absent or emotionally distant. It talked about the boys as either becoming extremely effeminate or hypermasculine (violent, insensitive, etc) and often confused about their sexual identity later in life.

The father's influence in the home is so important.

LMBLES

[lee (lee)]

Jeannie, Phil, others
It is the mystery you speak of that is one of the things that causes me to want to journey on. It is those encounters along the way that keep me going. It is those that I meet along the way that make it interesting. It is the diversity of God created in them that I find alluring. Although I like the analogy of the trees in the forest (especially because I paint trees) but I find people far more interesting and diverse.

It is the humility to be willing to learn that makes me want to befriend those along the way and the lack of that that causes me to turn away from what some say so emphatically. Jack has always told me that not anyone has all the truth, that some have a corner on the truth. That is what to be thankful for and receive as a gift from God.

I am one who has prayed for healing for years for loved ones and never had the answer I desire. I am one who has been told that I am living in unbelief as the cause of no healing, yet, I marvel at how God picks me up and I still go running to Him (first) and ask as though I have no history of prayers or 'unbelief'. I love the pursuit of going after Him. The end result would be wonderful, (I wouldn't hurt so deeply by the loss of one loved) but, we miss so much of knowing Him without walking through the process (journey) pf getting to know Him and the ways in which he works.

What I've learned as a painter, is that the end product isn't what makes my work get better, but the process by which I make them. Being fully engaged everyday, every moment is where treasures lie. It's what builds resources.

Our pastor has an illustration he uses often about prayer (and one day, I'd like to paint a picture of it). It is of bowls of different sizes and shapes, filled with water (representing prayers). Some prayers take longer to fill the bowl, months, maybe years. Some bowls fill to overflowing, maybe even spill into other bowls, but it all works together to answer and bless us and others.

I love this kind of life. I don't want to have it all figured out.

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Lee, I love this kind of life too! Your words made me think of this poem, which as a painter I am sure you would appreciate..

~monet refuses the operation~

doctor, you say there are no halos
around the streetlights in paris
and what i see is an aberration
caused by old age, an affliction.
i tell you it has taken all my life
to arrive at the visions of of gas lamps as angels,
to soften and blur and blur and finally banish
the edges you regret i don't see,
to learn that the line i called the horizon
does not exit and the sky and water,
so long apart, are the same state of being.
fifty-four years before i could see
rouen cathedral is built
of parallel shafts of sun,
and now you want to restore
my youthful errors: fixed
notions of top and bottom,
the illusion of three-dimensional space,
wisteria separate
from the bridge it covers.
what can i say to convince you
the house of parliament dissolve
night after night to become
the fluid dream of the thames?
i will not return to a universe
of objects that don't know each other,
as if islands were not the lost children
of one great continent. the world
is flux, and light becomes what it touches,
becomes water, lilies on water,
above and below water,
becomes lilac and mauve and yellow
and white and cerulean lamps,
small fists passing sunlight
so quickly to one another
that it would take long, streaming hair
inside my brush to catch it.
to paint the speed of light!
our weighted shapes, these verticals,
burn to mix with air
and change our bones, skin, clothes
to gases. doctor,
if only you could see
how heaven pulls the earth into its arms
and how infinitely the heart expands
to claim this world, blue vapor without end.

~Lisel Mueller

[karen (karen)]

Jeannie,

I love, love, love what you wrote. You captured what I have been struggling with for so long. Ultimately, inerrancy of the Bible is not the issue for me. Even if God spoke out loud and told me that indeed every Word is inspired, it would not change a thing about how I approach it. I come to the Word and I allow it a place “on” my heart. But it is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring it to life “in” my heart. If there are Scriptures that violate my conscience, I must NOT submit myself to them, because it would be my flesh trying to do the work of Christ without His Spirit. Mark Twain said that it isn’t the parts of the Bible he doesn’t understand that cause him problems, but the parts he DOES understand (paraphrased). I understand and find life in enough of the Bible to live today.

[lee (lee)]

I love this line:
I will not return to a universe of objects
that don't know each other.....

I will not return to the bubble world of the past...
hopefully, anytime a bubble appears, may God
arrange for it to be burst!

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Lee, Jeannnie, Karen...
I read your posts and found I could breathe in deeply and relax....I feel so close to each of you.

Monet's paintings have always touched me so deeply because of those soft muted tones and sense of being drawn into his perceptions.

This is why I am done with the "prescribed" everything set in stone kind of mentality that passes itself off as the way we have to live.

Karen I am looking forward to hearing from you as soon as the internet problem is resolved.

Thanks girls, Jeannie that poem is stunning.

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

LIMBLES AND RIGHTOR WRONG.
FIRST R OR W. I BELIEVE MANY ARE INTERESTED IN WHO PREACHES OR THIS THREAD MIGHT NOT HAVE RUN AS LONG AS IT HAS. WHAT MUST NOT BE DONE IS TO TURN THE QUESTION INTO A MALE VS FEMALE QUANDARY. FOR THIS IS NOT WHAT THE QUESTION IS SUPPOSED TO IMPLY. I TOO AM A PILGRIM AND A STRANGER TRAVELING THROUGH THIS WORLD, BUT FOR ME, (I LIKE SOME CERTANTIES) SEE WHEN YOU HAVE LIVED AS I DID A MYSTERIOUS KIND OF BEHIND THE SCENES NEVER KNOWING WHAT TO EXPECT NEXT, KIND OF EXISTANCE, THEN CERTANTIES FOR ME CAN BE AT THE LEAST REASSSURING. I DON'T WANT TO GO TO SLEEP ANYMORE WONDERING IF WHEN I WAKE MY CHILD WILL BE MISSING FROM MY CHEST AND BE GONE GOD KNOWS WHERE, FOR MONTHS UNTIL I TRACK DOWN THE #$%^&amp;*()%^&amp;*(*&amp; THAT KIDNAPPED HIM. NO, I LOVE TO KNOW WITH CERTANTY THAT WHEN I PUT MY DAUGHTER ON MY CHEST TO TAKE A NAP, THAT I CAN BE CERTAIN WHEN I WAKE THAT SHE WILL BE THERE OR NOT FAR AWAY. DO I WANT GOD TO SPELL OUT AND SHOW ME EVERY STEP OF THE WAY? OF COURSE NOT, BUT ESPECIALLY [IN HIM] THERE ARE THINGS THAT I MUST BE CERTAIN OF. BECAUSE WHEN MY GOD BECOMES VERY UNPREDICTIBLE, THEN I'M NOT TO SURE OF ANYTHING. WHEN I KNOW CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT THE LORD, IT MAKES MY JOURNEY THAT MUCH MORE EXCITING. GOD TOLD ABARAHAM TO TAKE HIS SON, HIS ONLY SON AND TAKE HIM TO MORIAH TO OFFER AS A SACRIFICE. IF ABRAHAM WAS NOT CERTAIN ABOUT GOD IN THE AREA OF PROVIDING FOR INSTANCE, THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN AWFUL JOURNEY TO THAT MOUNTAIN FOR HIM. PLEASE, ANYONE WHO HAS POSTED ABOVE, I'M NOT COMMENTING ON ANYTHING ANYONE HAS SAID EXCEPT TO SAY THAT I DON'T WANT MY WALK TO BE A BIG MYSTERY ANYLONGER. I SPENT ENOUGH DAYS WONDERING WHETHER I WAS GOING TO MAKE IT HOME ALIVE OR NOT. TODAY, I'M SECURE IN THE ARMS OF MY SAVIOUR. I'M SECURE ENOUGH IN HIM THAT WHEN HE SAYS THAT I AM TO GO INTO " THE LAND I WILL SHOW YOU" THAT EVEN IF HE HASN'T GIVEN ME THAT EXACT STREET ADDRESS, I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING ANYWAY. CAN ANYONE FEEL ME ON THAT?

AS FAR AS MEN WITHOUT FATHERS OR ONES WHO WERE A NEGATIVE INFLUENCE: I TOOK A POLL IN PRISON ONCE OF HOW MANY HAD NEGATIVE OR ABSENT FATHERS IN THEIR LIVES. MAYBE ONE GUY DIDN'T RAISE HIS HAND. EVERY MAN THERE DIDN'T HAVE A MALE INFLUENCE OR THE MALE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HELP THEM ALONG THE WAY WAS SCREWED UP HIMSELF. THAT'S JUST A FACT.

[the_one_post_wunderkind (the_one_post_wunderkind)]

Lee, you commented: "What I've learned as a painter, is that the end product isn't what makes my work get better, but the process by which I make them. Being fully engaged everyday, every moment is where treasures lie. It's what builds resources."

Lee, I like the idea of a process. I want to focus on that tree (process tree, if you will) in the forest of your comments for a moment. (Now, please realize that I do understand the larger context of your comments.)

I am not a painter, but, I can imagine from the profession that I am involved with that there are basic rules or universal truths for painting successfully. And, once you learn the basics there is freedom to be creative within the boundaries of painting and discover your gifts and grow...I would see this as the process.

Is there a certain order and approach to your painting - the process?

Is there a certain system and training you operate within and then are free to be creative within that very process?

Imagine a church that has no system and training or basics to operate and be creative within - I think the result is a canvas similar to a kindergarten easel. Sure, we had a lot of fun in kindergarten art painting on that easel. Thankfully, Mrs. Geyer made us put on our smocks...I know that made my mom happy! But, admittedly, we also made an awful mess! And, we continued to make a mess until the art teacher began to teach us the basics- the process of creating art from imagination to image.

Sure, there is a lot of fun in determining what we say is acceptable and unacceptable in the church. But, how can we know what is/is not -unless it is revealed in the scriptures? Is there a basic process that is given to the church to be creative within?

I cannot help but wonder if we make a mess on the canvas of the church by ignoring the basic porcess that HE has established. Obviously, this is an issue in the American Evangelical Community that is messy...so I put my theological smock on for this one.

Could it be that a scriptural process does exist in the Father's house and that it is the basics that HE has revealed in the scriptures? After all, it is HIS church and not ours...

(Message edited by the one post wunderkind on December 02, 2005)

[lee (lee)]

Gee Dave, I have no problem with that at all!

[louise_connolly (louise_connolly)]

Cordell/Jim - you stale stuffed sausage. I have to go off with my latest victim. I was just doing a factnet speed read. If you act as you do on this board with Mrs. Cordell she should be canonized as a Saint. Oops, that's Catholic now isn't it.

[cordell (cordell)]

Weezie, you, Karen, Lee et al should learn as we do down here as youngsters not to poke at critters that have teeth. Mrs. C IS a saint of the very best kind. And as far as sausage goes, I like mine in breakfast tacos. Back to your toadstool.

[cordell (cordell)]

JohnC. I'm going to continue to answer your 'difficult' post above. I want to address this little piece of it first:

<font color="0000ff">I don't believe that a woman speaking in a church is filthy nor disgraceful, yet the Bible says it is. I'm not adding unto, I'm not taking away from, I'm quoting. And acknowledging that I have a problem with this.</font>

You know John, a lot of folks on here would praise your attitude (I can just hear all the usual suspects clapping and cheering at your intellectual bravery, individualism, and nobility). I on the other hand will call a spade a spade--unbelief, in whatever form it seeks to express itself is just plain evil. Now, if you are merely finding a passage difficult to interpret that's one thing--if you understand the passage and object to it--and thereby to God the Holy Spirit's intended meaning--that's quite another. I for one will not praise you for your 'bravery' but will even go so far as to label this an effeminate and rebellious attitude toward God--<font color="ff0000"><u><font size="+2">if</font></u></font> you are understanding the passage and still objecting to it.

(Message edited by cordell on December 03, 2005)

[arron (arron)]

where does it say that a woman speaking in church is filthy or disgraceful. i have read the BIBLE through and havent found that at all

[cordell (cordell)]

John C. further you wrote:
<font color="0000ff">"Now reread the specific questions I asked. Why make paper dolls out of the Bible, cutting away certain verses while keeping the adjacent verses? The verse commands women to be silent in the church, doesn't it? Many posting on this thread, as well as most fundies in general apparently interpret it that <u>speak doesn't actuallly mean speak, it means preach</u>. On what authority do you/they change the word "speak" to mean "preach"? It's okay for women to communicate many other forms of speech, just not the form known as preaching? My honest question is, why?"</font>

John, if I tell my eight year old "don't run around on the lawn, I've just reseeded" and later look out to find her walking in figure eight patterns on the freshly reseeded area is she a literalist as you are being here? Is that the intent you think Paul has in this passage--he wants wooden literalism??? (JK has already addressed this above) but you seem to be saying that it is wrong to interpret the word "speak" as to "preach".

What is the particular context?

Let two or three <u>prophets speak</u>, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.

So John, if I ask you "Who's speaking at your church this morning?" Does that mean that your speaker is not preaching? What does a prophet have to do in order to prophesy? Doesn't he have to speak? In the context, women, who are allowed to prophesy elsewhere are not allowed to prophesy (speak) in church. They are to be submissive even as the law says, which issue I addressed above. Any other interpretation makes one passage (1 Cor. 11, 12) repugnant to this passage and makes Paul look like an idiot who can't carry a single train of thought.

If Paul has an intent here, it is not just to browbeat women as is so often supposed--it is to encourage MEN to be MEN of God and LEAD their wives as they were created to do--hence his appeals to the creation order in other places.

As to the verses being limited and local as has been alluded to above, consider this single phrase:

As in all the churches of the saints

Now if limited and local means that women are forbidden an activity in the locality of the church--well ok--but if this means that the remedy was limited and local--well, not really. Paul is addressing a local church with aberrant practices with a universal principle from the creation mandate.

(Message edited by cordell on December 03, 2005)

[cordell (cordell)]

arron: see JohnCollins posts above on this thread.

[cordell (cordell)]

Now, it also might be worth comparing a couple of scriptures for better understanding since there is some conjecture as to the intent. Note that in v.34 Paul invokes the law then in v.36 he says:

<font color="0000ff">Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?</font>

Compare that with this passage from Numbers 12:

<font color="0000ff">Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses ...And they said, Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also? And the Lord heard it.</font>

This brought about the following:

<font color="0000ff">But the Lord said to Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again.</font>

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Paul was a Roman AND a Pharisee.

I suspect it was difficult enough for the disciples and good old Paul to imagine that Jesus would mean to change things with his new "interpretations" of Isaiah etc.

It makes sense to me that the macho church leaders (rather than the effeminite types who actually might have understoof Christ is all awe and wonder at the grace and love toward all he espoused)would demand the women be silent in the New Covenant as they did in the Old.

Funny thing though...women are not shunned from sitting with the men in today's church. In the synagogue they still do perhaps...but not in the Christian churches round here. We obey some things, we disobey others...due to societal changes...hmmmmm...interesting.

The difference between societal mores and the Word can be so blurry....depends it seems who thinks they are in charge of society AND the interpretation of the Bible. And we all know that in America, white men believe themselves to be in charge of everything....anyone else is considered a minority.

As for Mrs C...well, I am sure she has learned to be subordinate, therefore no trouble at all to Mr. C. I do not find that at all a negative thing if that is the way they relate to God in their home. I have seen it work beautifully when BOTH partners accept and comply with the set parameters. I have also seen it become a disaster when the man quenches the light in a woman for his "position"

I suppose it is a greatexperience for Mr and Mrs C. as long as it is not abusive.

I do NOT believe however that unbelief is evil, do not believe that God demands the same relationship parameters for all couples and families, and does not withold Himself at all in families or with couples that do not suborninate one partner to the other in a blanketing way.

My husband and I believe we are equally loved, equally blessed and equally used by God for His own reasons. I do not rule the home, my husband does not rule the home. We are equal partners,spiritually and every other way. We find God to be always present in this relationship, and see His hand often in our witness and daily lives.

Bottom line, I DO believe, as Cordell mockingly puts it , that "that was then". I see no problem with it either. If our goal is to follow the Spirit of God, to be loving etc and choose to not follow this part of scripture, I know my God understands and will chastise if needed. So far he has been faithful and gives peace on this issue.

The jots and tittles are for others to employ. I simply in all good conscience cannot, and there it is.

Blessings to those who do, but a warning...do not be to puffed up that you do, for it ruins your testimony.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Here it is again (those who don't like the technical stuff may want to scrollhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif ):

"For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

This is a gnarly and opaque passage which defies consensus among conservative scholars. I am surprised to see Jim so assertive that his interpretation is the correct one. He asserts that the passage is timeless and binding, not cultural and limited. He further asserts that it means women should not preach. Problems with his view:

1. There is no textual reason why "speak" should mean "preach". That meaning has to be imported.

2. "Speak" in the preceding section means "prophesy", which women do (see chapter 11).

3. It is not unreasonable to ask the word "speak" to mean "preach". It is unreasonable to ask the phrase "remain silent" to mean "don't preach". The way "silent" is used previously in the chapter, it means silent while someone else is speaking, not make any kind of noise you want except preach.

4. The disgraceful speaking is related to asking questions, NOT to preaching. Insert "preach" for the last "speak" and you get nonsense. Jim's suggestion that "speak" = "preach" is unconvincing.

5. That means that a literal binding interpretation makes this passage repugnant to others.

6. The needs of unmarried women and widows were generally given high priority, however as JC noted, in this passage they are out of luck.

7. The word "disgraceful" suggests cultural sensitivity rather than timeless design. It is reminiscent of the "disgrace" in ch ll about hair length, which almost everyone agrees is cultural and temporary.

8. Paul could make a concession to the culture and still appeal to the law; appeal to law does not prove timeless universal applicability. The exact law he appeals to here is ambiguous.

9. "As in all the congregations of the saints" probably goes with "God is not a God of disorder but of peace" which probably closes out the preceding section. It probably does not go with "women should remain silent". As the Greek contains no verse numbers or punctuation, it could go either way.

10. There is no appeal to the creation order here.

11. An appeal to the creation order is not proof that a passage is timeless and binding (see ch 11 about head coverings).

In my mind, the evidence for local and limited application is stronger than for universal and binding. It may or may not be appropriate for women to preach, but this passage does not pertain.

Most readers and well-adjusted people probably recognize this intuitively and are not interested in this type of argument http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif. This passage may remain a mystery, and there is certainly no reason to divide from or think less of people who understand it differently (or who wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole).

[sojourner (sojourner)]

For such a time as this...John Kranis posted.
Thank you John...the debate is not a hot button for me, since I am not in any church at the moment, but the way it was being manhandled was irritating.
I also apprreciate your reference to the role of intuition in understanding we do not have to have a 2nd century mindset out of a misquided sense of loyalty to literalism.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

A better explanation cannot be found, John. Thank you.

[mrsdrysdale (mrsdrysdale)]

When God's anointing is upon your life to preach then I think you should walk that out in your life. Whether you are a male or female. There are alot of good preachers out there and yes, some of them are women.

[cordell (cordell)]

<font color="0000ff">The disgraceful speaking is related to asking questions, NOT to preaching. Insert "preach" for the last "speak" and you get nonsense. Jim's suggestion that "speak" = "preach" is unconvincing.... It is not unreasonable to ask the word "speak" to mean "preach". It is unreasonable to ask the phrase "remain silent" to mean "don't preach". The way "silent" is used previously in the chapter, it means silent while someone else is speaking, not make any kind of noise you want except preach. </font>

I want to preface my response first by saying that I attend a church where the ONLY thing that distinguishes what women do and what men do is who preaches (prophesies) from the pulpit on a Sunday morning.

What is at stake here is not the piddly issue of what 'silent' means or what 'speak' may mean--it is submission to authority, by both men and women and that authority proceeds from God and it was ordained at Creation.

I should have said 'alludes' to Creation concerning ch. 14 rather than 'appeals' and the point is taken, however the allusion is plain and I will prove it out shortly. There is not an appeal here that is explicit, in that this has taken place earlier in ch. 11. That it is plain and applies to all time is without question.

What is occuring, JK during the church gathering mentioned in ch.14?

<font color="0000ff"> <u>When you come together</u>, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.</font>

Paul is talking about a church gathering. Everyone participates. Women included. They are to pray, to sing, to (gasp) read the Scriptures aloud, greet one another with the sign of peace and with a holy kiss, take part in the Lord's Supper, be baptised (even if they are infant women in my book, my dear Baptist friend) and they are to serve one another. AND they can teach other women.

Now if you like, all the above can be proven from the OLD Testament as well as the New. But I will not go through the list--do that work yourself--suffice it to say that women have always taken part in the assembly of the saints.

So what speaking is prohibited them?

This section of the discussion begins this way, Paul is calling for order:

<font color="0000ff">"Let two or three <u>prophets speak</u>, and let the others weigh what is said"</font>

If we want to do the "I can show you in the Greek dance" we can go that route--suffice it to say that the word "speak" in v.29 which is what the prophets are doing is identical to the word "speak" in v.34 which is what women are prohibited from doing.

What is prohibited to women is AUTHORITATIVE PROPHETIC SPEAKING and nothing else.

Why?

Because they are to subject themselves as the Law says (and here is the allusion to CREATION--it is not just Numbers 30--because this is the FIRST place submission is spoken of as far as the roles of men and women go).

Paul appeals to the marital responsibility of the man to teach his wife.

Follow if you will the path of sin.

Adam is created.

God gives him the covenantal commandment--that all the trees of the garden are his to freely eat from but of the tree of knowledge he must not eat, or he will die. (A promise of Life is implicit as a reward for perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience which Adam had the ability to achieve--the tree of Life)

Eve is 'built' from Adam's rib. (Nothing like a well built woman--blame the phrase on the Hebrew, not me) Adam is responsible to teach her what God has commanded. She is CREATED TO HELP--OR 'FOR' HIM.

Satan bypasses the man, and tempts the woman who is deceived.

The man abdicates his responsibility and gives heed to his wife.

We are now, because of their disobedience, cursed with death, pain and enmity in our existence.

Of particular note is what occurs to the woman:

<font color="0000ff">To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; <u>Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.</u>" </font>

This last section is better interpreted thus (don't take my word for it, read the commentators, etc):

Your desire shall be against your husband but he shall rule over you

Hence in 1 Cor. 14 when Paul says:

<font color="0000ff">34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.</font>

He alludes to the Creation responsibility which is given to men to teach their wives which they are also prone to abdicate and women are prone to usurp because MAN is prone to desire to usurp GOD'S authority and that is definitely filthy.

[cordell (cordell)]

Might I also point out that Paul is not the only apostle to so direct women:

1 Peter 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

[the_one_post_wunderkind (the_one_post_wunderkind)]

For such a time as this...Cordell posted. Thank you Jim...the debate is a hot button for many; and, since I am visiting churches with my family during our time of transition, the way it was being womanhandled was irritating to me.

I also apprreciate your reference to the Creator's role of men and women in understanding that we do not have to have a 21st century wooden mindset out of a misguided sense of loyalty to feminism, modernism, political correctness and relativism.

A better explanation cannot be found, Jim. Thank you.

And, I would add that you and Donna have a wonderful marriage that is submitted to Christ, submitted to one another in love as believers and one that models the biblical teaching of male and female in a Christian home. And, if any of you think Mr. Cordell is a 'tyrant' you are sadly mistaken, I know Mrs. Cordell and she is no pushover. And, Jim's bark is much larger than his bite of words.

The problem with men in America is that we have abdicated our Designer's commission.

John Krainis thank you for trying to teach and fulfill your God given design of biblical manhood...even though your interpretation lacked context for this passage and most readers and well-adjusted people probably recognize this intuitively and are interested in this type of debate.

This passage is not a mystery, and there is certainly no reason to think less of people who understand it differently (or who wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole).

Peace &amp; Grace To All On The Journey Of Faith,
topw

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

The fundie twins are cute when they are being authoratative and condescending at the same time, aren't they?

You are welcome to your opinions, and that is all they are, about your interpretation of this section, or any section of scripture, gentlemen.

Contrary to your "opinions", which I repeat, is all they are, others who do not share them are NOT living in unbelief and therefore evil as Jim has said in other places.

God is a mystery. Carl was wrong that categorical doctrine reveals Him and makes Morning Star Order believers who are the elite. Have you both forgotten that?

Stick to your righteousnesness, piety and put downs of others gentlemen. That more than anything reveals the nature of your spirituality.

I prefer the mystery, the unfolding and new revelations of God in my walk...the possibilities are amazing, and am terribly glad to be out of the fundamentalist box that so limits anyone but men in the realm of His Church.

Have a good evening.

[nonotone (nonotone)]

RJ - don't ya think that fudamentalist box limits _everyone_? I'm not prepared to consign our two friends to this box BTW because it's clear to me that they only meet the standard of bein labeled "fundamentalists" by painting them with that "liberal" broad brush! (see how interchangable "name calling" is).

Of course this is post-modern America, so those with a proclivity towards "unfolding and new revelations of God" are free to gather with their ilk, while those like "the twins", me, and our collectives wives and kids are free to gather with our crowd who tend toward a more historical-grammatico method of understanding the Scriptures.

Why even in our own conservative Presbyterian camp there is substantial disagreement on the nature of what worship music and singing should be, how progressive sanctification is balanced with forensic justification, and a pile of other more or less important ecclesiastical details. ... yet we all still bascially agree that the way to resolving these things is through rigorus examination of the Holy Book and ourselves in the mirror of what it reveals.

Again, the dividing line in our discussions continues to be defined by the acceptance of authority along some continuum between absolute personal autonomy and absolute _recognition_ (here I use "recogition" rather than "submission to" because of the frailness of the human condition) that God alone is sovereign and his way (as revealed in Scripture) is perfect.

Of course you believe that this can be dermined by "new and unfolding" revelations and we believe the revelation has already been stated clearly throughout the Scriptures with the really important stuff being not that difficult to understand.

My question is this: sans "Carl and crew" how does your "unfolding and new revelations" differ from what you had/were in GGWO? It seems like "unfolding and new revelations" are exactly what landed many (if not most) of us in TBS/GGWO in the first place.


Brian

(Message edited by nonotone on December 04, 2005)

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Brian

You mistake my characerization of my friends...and they both know I love them...as "fundies" as namecalling.

I found no new and unfolding experience with God at all at GGWO. It was all submission to Carl's illegitimate authority that was supposed to reveal God, then it was, from the fundamentalist faction here and elsewhere, submission to what is believed to be God's design for men and women that was supposed to reveal Him...

I decline to submit to anything I cannot in all conscience that does not reveal Him to me personally.

I have stated before and do believe that what reveals the Holy Spirit to Jim and his friend, to anyone, is fine for them and I am happy that it does. That is does not for me is between God and me.

You mistake banter for name calling and accusation, Brian. Don't let it worry you.

[the_one_post_wunderkind (the_one_post_wunderkind)]

Roberta,
You wrote:

God is a mystery. Carl was wrong that categorical doctrine reveals Him and makes Morning Star Order believers who are the elite. Have you both forgotten that?

Stick to your righteousnesness, piety and put downs of others gentlemen. That more than anything reveals the nature of your spirituality.

Why do you marginalize me? If this is banter than I am missing the humor. I agree with a conservative and historical interpretation of this text and you resort to an off handed comparison of me to Carl and his morning star lunacy. I just don't get it.

I cannot help but echo Lee here. Thank you Lee to your appeal for fairness. And, Lee, by your request I am editing this to place qoutes around your words. I also happen to agree with Lee, that this topic "deserves more thoughtfulness than it has been given in our churches and hoped that we could discuss it with respect, BUT once again, (here I replace Jim with Roberta) has taken it upon herself to degrade us" by comparing us to Carl and belittling our spirituality because we claim there is a biblical order in the church as in the home.

I, as Lee, have "taken enough bashing around in life, thank you, I will not take anymore...In your bubble world (here I replace Jim with Roberta), there is evidently no room for research, exploration and growth. Evidently, even here, you believe that (here I replace women with men) should be taught by you, and if we don't agree meekly, then we are subject to your ridicule. You are wrong."

Again, I agree with Lee and I desire respect in this subject. (here I replace Jim with Roberta), "I'd like to learn something more about this subject. Why can't we learn from others and discuss it without it dissolving into abuse?"

Roberta, you are my friend, please stop. I just need to step out for awhile. My tank is running on empty. I have nothing more to give.

Again, here I echo Lee: "To others that have made a thoughtful contribution, thank you. I hope to learn more than I know this moment."

Peace and Grace,
topw

(Message edited by the one post wunderkind on December 05, 2005)

[johncollins (johncollins)]

TOPW:

Roberta dissolved this thread into abuse?! How do you figure? I won't requote all he said, but spend 10 minutes and reread Cordell's numerous abusive statements before you accuse Roberta. Then you, TOPW not only twisted the words of Sojo, John Krainis and maybe others, but again pompously declared that anyone who is well adjusted will be interested in this debate. I was interested in a discussion - not the slanderous nonsense of this thread.

My posts on this thread began as an indication that on a personal level, I am not going to substitute one self appointed pharisee for another. The bald faced willingness to set yourself (that's the generic "you" not anyone in particular) up not as merely "a" representative of God but "the" man of God, "the" mouth piece, "the" one whose interpretation is always correct seems the height of arrogance to me.

On a broader level, I posted to purposely stick my finger in the eye of the New Bosses - the self appointed pharisees who have assumed the role of the arbiter of all that is right and just and pure about the Bible. Especially those who, within the little world of FN, by virtue of the volume of their blather think they can blow themselves up into a big fish in this little pond. Those who pompously assume that anyone who dares disagree with them is some sort of sub-Christian. (Isn't that how they do Christianity at the plaza?) Those who seek to reduce every discussion to being about sexuality (http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/15402.html?1133705827#POST224890), making sure anyone not lined up with his theology is marginalized as an "emasculated and effeminate man" or an "unhinged woman with strapped on fake testicles." (any Freudians out there who can analyze Cordell's testicle fascination?) That's not abusive though, right TOPW?

When I first began regularly reading FN, I was amazed at how often the discussion broke down into seemingly petty bickering and turf wars. I didn't know what that was about. Now I understand how folks participating in a discussion board can weary of the bullying tactics of one or two seeking to dominate the entire discussion.

Cordell - you're a bully, plain and simple. I know -- you don't care that I said so, probably revel in the charge, and will come back with that cunning wit and charm of yours to put me in my place. That's okay. You're still a bully. To the extent of seeking to terrorize anyone who might "praise" my attitude, by putting them on notice that if they do, you'll set your sites on them next and begin the name calling and denunciations, exposing their sin when you can, etc.

I asked a simple question and for days you went off on several tangents until you had totally spent yourself on them. Only then would you deign to address this evil, effeminate, rebellious spade.

You're a bully, Jim, plain and simple. CHS taught that's how it's done, and I think you like that style. Probably makes you feel like a macho Ranger. Do you also poke your tongue in your cheek and squint, trying to look defiant as you post? I care not about how fat your head's become with all your "superior" knowledge (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:1;&amp;version=45;) Jim - where's the love?

As Hodeuon pointed out (http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/12374.html?1133658791#POST229786), Steve Scibelli recently taught that "it seems like Jesus had a plan to be offensive to test where people stood." If that works for him and works for you - go for it. Just as I will, you too shall stand before God for all your teaching (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%203:1;&amp;version=45;).

I wrote earlier (http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/15402.html?1133705827#POST229609), "Cordell, you win it’s your show now. So what’s it going to be? Because people will tune in, how many train wrecks do we need to see?" Guess it's a double dedication to the Cordell-TOPW tag team.

Jim, I know you like to impress us with that Texas Ranger persona. As you suggested, I looked up "one riot, one ranger" and read about (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/texas_rangers/#Silver%20Stars%20and%20Sixguns) the fabled Texas Ranger, Captain W. J. McDonald. His motto which evolved into the Ranger creed, "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on a-comin."

Cordell, (and TOPW it seems) - you win. Not because I can't stand up to you, you big bully. But because, plain and simple - I don't care, Jim. Those theological fights you so esteem, name calling and all? I don't care. You win by default. I'm not trying to stand against you. Don't think this means you're "in the right" even though that is a possibility. The issue isn't me, the issue isn't you. You want to "keep a-comin" like a psycho Energizer Bunny, and since I don't care about your need to be the FN alpha male - you win.

John

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

http://www.jcsgirls.com/

this is carl's idea of the proper christian ministry for womens' assets.

[lee (lee)]

OTP sometimes I don't get your humor and sometimes I do. This time you hit the nail on the head. To some people, women are nothing but something to own or play with, use or discard when they are finished. It's mocking and cruel.

I'm grateful that I can and will walk away from this. I hope those reading will see for themselves the spirit that does this is not Godly and see that the same spirit exists in their ministry or home or church and flee from it.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Me? Marginalize YOU? Feels good, yes? Welcome to the plight of women in the current fundie church.

ME? Abusive? Relatively speaking, my comments were very mind compared to your buddy Cordell, so I do think you MIGHT wanna rethink that one.

I do care about you and Cordell, and you know that, but get a grip here. Simply because I do not meekly sit back and agree, comply, submit etc...doesn't mean I am less than you.

John Collins and John Karanis BOTH have a fair and balanced view of the topic, and I heartily agree with both. Cordell HAS been a bully and you know that.

You have had enough, TOPW? Where is your compassion for those that your buddy Cordell abuses verbally? This is why I wonder about the quality of spirituality of you both. At this point, you both exhibit a strange spirit that is far too close to that which Carl always exhibited.

So...calm yourself, my friend. I have taken more than one drubbing from you both and expect I will again...after all, as a mere woman I suspect you both will feel it is your duty to "put me in my place" since my...what is Cordell's favorite accusation?...obviously my "too feminized" husband is unable to do so...*LOL*

Relax, TOPW...it's all good. Enjoy the holidays.

[listener (listener)]

Lee,

"the spirit that does this is not Godly "

I'm not trying to be funny or rude here, but what did you mean by "this" in the context?

The branch ministry that I left did not appear to me to trivialize the role(s) of women. Admittedly, GG doctrine does place limits on those roles (and many thoughts have been posted above that cover the topic in an interesting manner).

I visited OTP's site. I am continually amazed at the sites that people find, and this one is certainly no exception. As a guy, I confess that my initial curiosity may have walked too close to titillation, but I listened to the news video, and tried to learn something.

I do not have the answer to the question "How close do we have to walk in the sinner's path in order to be "all things to all men", and for me, that would be too close.

But the ministry in the website, was conceived by women, is under authority (has accountibility), and appears to be trying to do something for God's glory.

It's possible that Carl may have approved of it, I did not know him at all, or any of those in leadership at Baltimore.

But please expand on the ungodliness that you mention, and on whether you are criticizing the web ministry, or some aspect that you are connecting with GGWO.

Thank you.

listener

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Alrighty then, in response to Jim, I thought overall it was a clear and helpful presentation. You have good stuff to share. As sarcasm, insults, taunts and condemnation were kept to a minimum, I was able to focus on the material and consider the matter in a different light (and I mean that with absolutely no sarcasm - I really did try to understand what you were saying).

"What is at stake here is not the piddly issue of what 'silent' means or what 'speak' means"

True, but if you argue a point you can expect to have others reply. And semantics do play a role in understanding the "big picture".

"That (an allusion to creation) is plain and applies to all time is without question."

To you.

"If we want to do the "I can show you in the Greek dance" we can go that route--suffice it to say that the word "speak" in v.29 which is what the prophets are doing is identical to the word "speak" in v.34 which is what women are prohibited from doing."

I think you're going to have to do the dance. Silent (Gr sigao) in verse 28 has a different meaning from verse 34 (Gr sigao)? Other commentators feel the speaking/prophesying in Ch 14 is distinct from authoritative teaching. Also, the prophesying that women do alongside of man in 11:4 (propheteuo) is the same root word as the prophets doing the "authoritative phophetic speaking" that you say is occurring in 14:29 (prophetes).

"What is prohibited to women is AUTHORITATIVE PROPHETIC SPEAKING and nothing else."

Assuming what you are attempting to prove, and contra-indicated by the ch 11 parallelism.

"Adam is responsible to teach (Eve) what God has commanded."

An inference, but a reasonable one.

"Your desire shall be for (or against) your husband"

This does admittedly have a nice resonance with "let them ask their husbands". It is a possible understanding, but problems remain. And technically, it is a reference to the fall, not creation.

Overall an explanation worth considering, but which raises other problems and questions and does not satisfactorily answer any of my prior objections. However, I affirm your understanding of the "big picture" and have a better grasp of why you see the passage the way you do. I will continue to confess that I cannot find a satisfactory way to understand and harmonize this passage, and see it as probably limited and local.


There are two issues here, one is gender roles. The other is Jim.

On gender roles, as stated elsewhere I favor the Biblical evidence for male leadership in church and home (and disagreeing with Jim's take on 1Cor 14 does not change that - to me there is much stronger support elsewhere). lmbles expressed the position well earlier in this thread. However the case that Biblical gender differences are culturally-based needs to be given a fair hearing.

But IMO there are things more displeasing to God than a woman pastoring contrary to His design. And that brings me to Jim.

To be continued...

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

I see Jim presenting himself as a Bible expert. So I would expect his behavior to be admirable and worthy of imitation. Unfortunately, I often see the opposite: quarrelling and brawling, Bible-cudgeling, puerile name-calling, intolerance of other legitimate views, haste to condemn. I will refrain from citing all the Scriptures which are violated. Jim’s presence on FN strikes me as more reminiscent of Jesus’ adversaries than of Jesus.

The apostle Paul spoke of judgment, hell, obedience, all manner of "hard truth", yet people loved him. He was with them like a mother with her children. And they wept to see him go.

I found Jim’s post to John Collins offensive in the extreme. What person in relationship with God has not had times of wrestling and controversy? Jim’s response: "evil, "effeminate", "rebellious"; while congratulating himself on his forthrightness. And I saw all the "if's". They simply mean that he could not wait to get the facts before pronouncing judgment. And all this over an honest response to a disputed and treacherous passage.

Another individual disagreed with Jim, and Jim responded with a personal attack, exposing his sins. Note, this was not done to “rescue him from the fire”, it was an attack because he disagreed with Jim.

I share most of Jim’s “fundamental” beliefs, but refuse to be a party to or defend his treatment of people.

TOPW says "Jim's bark is much larger than his bite of words." All I know of Jim is his words. If he is different in person, perhaps you can be a true friend and help him express himself in a less offensive manner. That to me would an act of godly MANHOOD. I believe his approach under the banner of the Bible causes the word of God to be disrespected. You refer to creation, how about helping him comply with an uncontested aspect: treating those who bear the image of God with respect and courtesy. Even if they struggle with doubt or hold to different beliefs.

Most on this board agree that those close to Carl Stevens were unwilling or unable to correct him. Have we learned anything? Should you, TOPW, not attempt to correct Jim? Or do you not feel correction is needed? Are you an enabler? Why or why not?

(Message edited by john krainis on December 08, 2005)

[louise_connolly (louise_connolly)]

Well said, John Collins.

What the discussion shows is the difference between men who left the GGWO cult because they knew it was fake and men who left because the cult rejected them and would not give them what they wanted. They would still be 'pretend pastors' there today if they were getting what they deemed their cut of the pie. I would add dreadful bore to bully in the name calling department. I can be mean but I thought the 11-30 3:32pm post to Neil was quite brutal. It is difficult not to note similarities between 'Carl and his clones' and 'Cordell the cult reject'. That being said I am returning to my forgotten habit of ignoring trolls.

How refreshing to read when John Kranis, Jack Leonard, and Jim Kennedy (discuss GGWO) share their Bible teachings. Even if I don't agree with what some folks say relative to the scriptures, I appreciate their teaching gifts when it creates in me a thirst to study God's Word on the subject they mention.

Factnet for me is about exposing the cult. However, I can't help but get some great tidbits into God's spirit when I read what many of you post. I still am of the belief that the newly wounded who have exited would be better off getting help from folks who were never part of GGWO. We can share our stories but we all have the common flaw of something wrong with us that caused us to join the GGWO cult.

[the_one_post_wunderkind (the_one_post_wunderkind)]

John C. and John K. or,
Dear John x2,

I am far from perfect. I have learned the painful lesson of being slow to correct others. I am pompous? I am enabler? How do you know I am twisting words? That is your perception.

I appreciate Jim’s research and attention to detail and I commended John K. for his efforts. This makes me pompous? I just do not get it! I too am interested in this discussion. But, if I am going to be slapped around I am done here. I try to avoid Jim's and others arguments and I am now reminded why. I guess the only debate we can have is one sided? Where is your sense of academic freedom, Johnx2?

John C., You wrote: (forgive me for not asking permission to quote you in this thread liberally) “Then you, TOPW not only twisted the words of Sojo, John Krainis and maybe others, but again pompously declared that anyone who is well adjusted will be interested in this debate. I was interested in a discussion - not the slanderous nonsense of this thread”

All I did was echoed Krainis when he said: “Most readers and well-adjusted people probably recognize this intuitively and are not interested in this type of argument. This passage may remain a mystery, and there is certainly no reason to divide from or think less of people who understand it differently (or who wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole).”

How does it differ from John K.'s comment? Is he pompous, too? What a double standard. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy here? I have not called you or others names on this thread. Do not confuse my agreement with Jim’s interpretation with his methods and biting remarks.

BTW, I have jumped on Jim many times for how he says things. Do the FN police need to have me do it again? Jim, quit being such an ogre! You have a good contribution but you take away from the message with your methods...as I have said on numerous occasions.

John C., you ask, "Where is the abuse?" My spirituality is mocked and I am compared to Carl and that is not abusive? Why? Because, I appreciate Jim's research on this sticky debate? That makes me pompous? John, I am sorry you feel this way about me.

Johnx2 you both jump me because I agree with Jim without scolding his behavior! So, you say in effect, "You are geting slapped, look what Jim is doing." You do the same thing. I agree with his research not his methods. So, I am in error by agreeing with his research? You are the bullies here towards me! Ironic, is it not?

John C., I, as you, “on a broader level, posted to purposely stick my finger in the eye of the New Bosses” - the self appointed FN police, who have “assumed the role of the arbiter of all that is right and just and pure” about who has the ‘right’ interpretation. “Especially those who, within the little world of FN, by virtue of the volume of their blather think they can blow themselves up into a big fish in this little pond. Those who pompously assume that anyone who dares disagree with them is some sort of sub-Christian. (Isn't that how they do Christianity at the plaza?)” Those also make sure anyone ‘not lined up with their theology is 'marginalized’ as an "right wing, abusive fundie” sans Carl and club methods. But, that is not abusive, right Johnx2?

And, you seem to want to censor me now as we were at the Plaza. Are you part of the New Boss, Johnx2? Well, if you are then congratulations! I want no part of this!

I add my two cents to this debate and you gun me down. Have you holstered it yet? You are bullies, Johnx2, plain and simple. I expected more out of you. So go ahead and lock horns on here with Jim. To quote you, “CHS taught that's how it's done, and I think you like that style - where's the love?”

Johnx2 and others, to coin a phrase: "you win it’s your show now. So what’s it going to be? Because people will tune in, how many train wrecks do we need to see?" …Johnx2 - you win. Not because I can't stand up to you, you big bullies. But because, plain and simple” - I don't care, Johnx2...Those theological questions you so esteem, name calling and all? I don't care. “You win by default.”

In my opinion, you do not appear to be looking for honest debate. So be it! I am looking for answers and I am open to correction in my life and in my doctrine. Are you Krainis and Collins? In the future, I will go elsewhere for biblical discussions that are more than one sided.

To qoute you again,The issue isn't me, the issue isn't you. You want to keep taking pot shots at me that is fine, and since I don't care about your collective need to be the FN alpha male - you both win.

John K: You wrote:

"Should you, Pastor Dave Drago, not attempt to correct Jim? Or do you not feel correction is needed? Are you an enabler? Why or why not?

John, your questions are designed to entrap. Not that I owe you an answer, but I will do my best. I am far from perfect. I have no delusions of self righteousness. I have corrected him (this you know full well). I do believe his approach needs help. The same is true of yours and John. All three of you need help in your approach. You three can have your own little OK Coral...I will not be the referee. I have come to view you John Krainis as just another self appointed FN policeman. Or, perhaps the Mayor of FN land. So, join the FN bully crowd John K...where as long you stick to the group think you are accepted. Does this sound hauntingly and chillingly familiar? Meet the New Boss...well you know the rest.

And, on a personal note, you do not know me at all. I am not pastoring a church at this time. And, no I am not an 'enabler' and you have read my corrections of Jim on numerous occassions. Or, have you forgotten? If you think I 'enable' him that is just plain laughable. You know as well as I do that he has a mind of his own! I try to tone him down! Enable Jim...shoot that is like Bill Clinton enabling Hillary to be an outspoken liberal! She is what she is without his help! Jim is what he is without my help! I am ROTFLMAO...

And, now Johnx2 in the same spirit of your questions to me, I have a question for both of you, who enables you, you pompous, arrogant, sanctimonious little boys?

Dave


(Message edited by the one post wunderkind on December 05, 2005)

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

TOPW:

My question was not a trap. I had an extremely high opinion of you from your prior posting, and as Jim has resisted reproof and entreaty, it seemed to me that he might listen to you, his friend (not a referee). Jim's conduct here has been out of control, yet at 5:28 pm yesterday you DEFENDED HIS CHARACTER, not just his research:

<font color="ff0000">And, I would add that you (Jim) and Donna have a wonderful marriage that is submitted to Christ, submitted to one another in love as believers and one that models the biblical teaching of male and female in a Christian home. And, if any of you think Mr. Cordell is a 'tyrant' you are sadly mistaken, I know Mrs. Cordell and she is no pushover. And, Jim's bark is much larger than his bite of words.</font>

The question of enabling seems fair.

And it was a question. I was not aware that you have admonished Jim and oppose his approach, but am glad of it.

That said, as a fellow-sinner I would appreciate knowing how my approach needs help. Scripture warns us to take the log out of our own eye prior to removing someone else's splinter. I don't want to be a cop, mayer, alderman, bully, pompous, arrogant, sanctimonious, or anything like that. I listed specific instances about Jim. Please cite specific examples and if you are right I will "man up" and thank you for it.
I truly wish you the best with your new endeavors.

(Message edited by john krainis on December 08, 2005)

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

SATAN 4 CHRISTIANS 0


WONDER WHO'S REALLY GETTING THEIR WAY HERE?

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

gone to pa

Your post makes no sense...care to elaborate?

[dinaweena (dinaweena)]

I'm with ya on that one, rj.

[the_one_post_wunderkind (the_one_post_wunderkind)]

John,

Let me list ten reasons why my 'give a damn is busted'

From the home office in Anywhere, USA:

10. This discussion is pointless. Your question was a trap (even if you say it was not) and is not gernmaine to the topic of this thread.

9.I have no interest in your sense of fair or in pointing out your faults or Jim's for that matter. What is the point?

8. If you desire to be the FN policeman than knock yourself out.

7. I will not engage in this dialogue any further. You Alpha males go for it!

6. I was interested in a multi-faceted dailogue on the topic of this thread...not in citing specific examples of your shortcomings or Jim's.

5. For that, please refer to the mirror, magistrate and map of the written Word of God and His Law that is written on your heart as a believer... It will do a much better job than my flawed observations.

4. How many are still in bondage to the cult of GGWO? How does this pertain?

3. You are liberated...what will you do with your freedom?

2. Jim helped the Lang's, wrote his story, encouraged me to write mine on Carlstevens.org and helped many others on the exit ramp, so despite all his bombast he has been a practical help in toppling the cult. What is your tactical, operational and strategic plan?

1. It is Christmas and I plan on enjoying my family and friends not bickering with you. So, in that spirit of peace I say, "Grace To You and Merry Christmas!

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

"How refreshing to read when John Kranis, Jack Leonard, and Jim Kennedy (discuss GGWO) share their Bible teachings. Even if I don't agree with what some folks say relative to the scriptures, I appreciate their teaching gifts when it creates in me a thirst to study God's Word on the subject they mention. "

Oh Louise I totally agree.

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? READ THE LAST 23 POSTS AND THEN ASK AGAIN. a hint [ satan's score is irrelevant] JUST THE FACT THAT HE IS AHEAD IS THE SIGNIFICANCE.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Kidding? Moi? Nope.

Satan is not winning when people are free to speak, to express themselves, no matter if everyone agrees or not.

This is America, which is NOT a theocracy. Factnet is open to all views on any subject and I say THAT is a victory over the "satanic" nonsense that Christians must all agree on everything, must always speak like drugged happy drones and neglect their critical processes.

Satan has not won a thing, unless one still believes in the Uncle Jr.'s Cult garbage, which I do not.

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

I guess he's not winning when good men and women of God, ambassadors of Christ are argueing, insulting and jumping ship to get off this thread. Is that what was intended by this thread? Is the Lord having His way here? You call it free to speak, because freedom of speech here seems to come at a cost. I see it differently. People here are being insulted enough to leave until Christmas or later in the name of not wanting to bicker. That's the Lord? Their wanting to leave is, that's the Lord. You see it your way and I'll see it mine and everything that doesn't agree with you or your thinking doesn't always have to have it's roots in Carl Stevens. If so then that's obcessive. Uncle Junior, LoL haven't had the pleasure or not. I just look at it like this. When I was sitting here and not even involved in the debate or whatever you wanted to call it (good clean fun?) then I watch as the thread begins (TO ME) to take a slight nosedive and down it goes and the people who were ministering to me have felt like they have been insulted and whatever else they felt, enough to take their leave, well honey I feel like I've been robbed and the last time I looked, there is only one that comes to STEAL, and it isn't the Life of the Lord. Thank you for allowing me my humble take on what's happened. Shalom GTP goodnight Uncle Jr. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but that doesn't make my opinion cult garbage, unless you believe everyone who disagree's with you is still speaking "Cult Words" As for me, I've been gone for quite some time and am in a very healthy "local assembly"...opps shouldn't have said that, that's cult garbage.LoL Sleep well Rj. See you on the flipside. Tom