Conference yukon::christian_v7

    "All scripture is useful..."
    
    But I think that this section is addressed to the recipients of the
    letter, and not specifically at us.  What's the To: line say?
    
    It is useful to us in that we can see that Paul is telling them what to
    do, and that it follows the culture that they had... so why did he say
    it to them?  What sort of problem did they have that we might have so
    that we may apply the verses?
    
    James

    I know there are many who believe that this scripture is not applicable
    to all churches and there are some of you who have female Pastors. 
    Right up front please let me say that I'm not intending to hurt any
    of you, I love you and this is one of those things that I wouldn't for
    the life of me purposely offend you. 
    
    On the other hand, for the sake of the discussion, I need to voice my
    conviction that women are not to be Pastors.  In Timothy when Paul
    talks about the roles of the leaders in the church, he says for the
    deacons, bishops [pastors] to be husbands of one wife.  Women do not
    have wives.  No where in the scripture does it note female Pastors. 
    However, I do believe that women can be teachers, but I don't think
    women should teach men on spiritual matters.   That doesn't mean that a
    man cannot learn from a woman, what it does mean is that Spiritual
    leadership is the man's role as defined in the marriage relationship
    and in the church.
    
    Why would God have the family different then the church?  How confusing
    for a family who's Mother is the church's spiritual leader and the
    father is submissive to her in the church role... doesn't this seem
    really questionable?   Where is the headship... does Pastor Jane become
    submissive to the spiritual authority of her husband?  Think about
    human behavior...it would be very difficult. 
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    I'd just like to say that our Church has a female minister - has had
    for the last 3/4 years and she is unmarried.
    
    She used to be headmistress at a school in Kent and was called to the
    ministry. If God does not want women ministers, why does he call them?
    Sylvia has done so much for our Church that I can't think that a
    mistake has been made.

I understand this passage (1 Cor 14: 33-35) as context-specific, but that doesn't
stop us from learning from it today. The main theme of 1 Corinthians is disci-
pline in the church and particularly behaviour in worship. Paul was writing in
response to specific problems of rowdy behaviour,espcially in the eucharist, and
these problems were particularly coming from women in the congregation - perhaps
because they saw the church setting as one where they could disregard normal
social conventions of the day. Corinth at this time was famous as the centre of 
the pagan cult of Diana, and local society was becoming licentious and uncon-
trolled in every way. Some of the members were bringing the outside world's
attitudes and behaviour into church activities including worhsip.

Thus this epistle covers behaviour in church; behaviour and relationships between
church members and with their families; the exercise of spiritual gifts in the 
setting of worship; behaviour within ordinary social settings; and so on. As
usual, Paul's writing includes a series of loops and (almost) digressions from 
which we learn so much (e.g. on the nature of spiritual gifts themselves).

Paul wrote these things both to increase the Corinthian Christians' knowledge of
the Gospel and how it applies in everyday life; and to combat specific faults of
behaviour and attitude. The faults were threatening the unity of the church, the
growth if its members, and the reputation of Christians and church in the 
community, so it was urgent for him to take the axe to the root of the malignant 
growth. In other places Paul is outspokenly critical of groups or individuals,
and prescribes what they must or must not do; so to find him giving specific
rules for the women in this case is normal. 

I believe these instructions would be seen as perfectly acceptable in the context 
of Corinthian society at that time, even though in our society we see them
through different eyes. The learning for us is still tough - we have to have 
leaders and we must accept that they will give instructions to individuals or to 
all in view of the authority they get from God. Instructions are there to be
followed whether we agree or not.

You'll gather from what goes before that I don't object to women having an active 
role in the church, especially as I'm a lay leader of church where we do have 
women in leading roles. However,I have huge respect for those of my brothers and
sisters who follow the word exactly as it is written. Let's concentrate on what 
unites us, not what might divide!

In Jesus' Name,		Richard.

    Well said Richard.  Too often we focus on the wrong message. We seek
    the "why" and "how dare you" of the text. The true focus is on worship.
    The roles and the atttudes of the activity of worship are the examples
    that Paul uses to show that the focus in the Corinth church was
    digressing from the "Truth and the Light." 
    
    Paul stated in another epistle, the roles of men and women have been
    orderedby God. First they are to be reverent and fearful of God.
    Then,...IF they should marry, the roles of the husband is the spiritual
    lead. The role of the women, I find much more difficult. She has to
    keep her family, instruct her children, and care for her husband and
    herself. Clearly a lot more than some guy making a living by the sweat
    of his brow.  Why the roles though??? That is the question here though.
    Why are men the leaders in the church? Right? Simply because that is
    his role. For Paul writes. Christ is the head of the church an man is
    the head of woman, for first came Adam, then Eve. The idea being
    expressed if worpship, not "headship" not "who is *over* whom" and not
    "who is to submit to whom."  Men and women are equal in all reapects.
    PERIOD. They just have different roles...
    
     - I have probably stated this very poorly, but I ask forgiveness if I
    have sounded offensive. - I just carry on simetimes, so now I think it
    is a good time to stop....8^)
    
       PDM

Just sticking my nose in quickly...

In general, I believe that God is sovereign and will do whatever needs to be
done to get His work done.  However, I also believe that there are certain
patterns in the Bible that we would do well to keep.  But, I am slowly coming
to wonder how much of the Bible is commandment, and how much is really meant 
to be the pattern of how we should do things.  Right now I tend towards think-
ing that a lot of the things in the New Testament about church structure, etc.,
are meant to be patterns and not commandments.  But, be that as it may...

To use the example of women in the church holding offices (I differentiate be-
tween exercising gifts and holding offices.  Someone who holds an office has
a position of authority/responsibility in the church, but *everyone* can exer-
cise his/her gifts):

     1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
     2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp author-
     ity over the man, but to be in silence.
     2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
     2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived
     was in the transgression.
     2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing,  if
     they  continue  in  faith  and  charity  and  holiness  with
     sobriety.

I believe that Paul is saying that the pattern should be: women are not to be
in authority over men in the church.  He goes all the way back to creation, and
the fall of Man, for his justification, which implies that it is NOT a cultural 
issue, ie God created us that way, and then we (man) sinned which further com-
plicates the issue.

Rob

    The sermon I heard on this stated this verse was more instruction to a
    specific congregation than what women were allowed to do.  That is
    covered in Timothy.
    
    The scenario he described was "  The men sat in the front of the
    assembly, the women all had to be in the back (due to tradition).  The
    speaker of course did not have a P. A. system. The women eager to learn
    the scripture would listen intently.  When they couldn't hear something
    they would address their husband who was sitting in the front "Hey
    Fred, what did he say?"
    
    This may be simplistic, but answers the later part, ask your husbands
    at home.
    
    Sparky

    .7
    
    Sparky,
    
    This sounds rather assumptuous to me.  Doesn't it to you?  Let me
    explain my confusion/conviction/ and ponderings about this...
    
    I guess I'm concerned that if we begin to negate the application of
    certain parts of the Bible because of *current* conditions, then we are
    very closely walking that line of negating the *whole* Bible.
    
    Then, I also realize that the O.T.'s laws' penalties are negated
    through the sacrifice of Jesus, who paid the price, the penalty for all
    sin.  But then law itself is VALID.  But there are many who look at the
    law's penalties and attempt to negate those passages, which in turns
    puts in jeopardy the Bible as the inerrant word of God... again a
    debatable subject.
    
    However, in the New Testament through the birth, death and resurrection
    of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are under grace and free from the penalty
    of sin... for EVERYONE, yes BUT only if you BELIEVE and RECEIVE God's
    gift.  So then comes Romans, Timothy, Corinthians... and we begin to
    treat it as we treat the OT, well it was applicable to only to them at
    that time.  It just seems as though we're picking and choosing that
    which feels good to believe.  If I've learned anything in 35 years,
    what feels good, ain't always what's right.  And not being a scholar, I
    get concerned when *feelings* begin to guide/lead my spirituality.
    
    Yes, I believe we can learn more and clarify things through looking at
    the culture of that time... but are we trusting *others*, pastors,
    teachers, etc., for looking at that time or are we doing the research
    ourselves.  It is *surmised* is often a word used in a message, and
    that doesn't mean its fact folks.  There is nothing wrong with
    surmising, but be cautious the authors from which you are receiving
    information to surmise about.
    
    I'm not very good at this myself... I need to study for myself, study
    to be approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed...  At this
    time, I'd be ashamed of my own study and discernment.  I suppose its a
    good time to begin a resolution to be into the word myself more and not
    so trusting in my teachers to do the research for me.
    
    But until then, I CHOOSE to believe the New Testament is more then a
    model, it is what we should DESIRE and STRIVE towards in our walk with
    the Lord.  Again that doesn't mean everything should be taken
    literally, but we need to be very careful in study.
    
    Nancy

    Timothy 2:12, at least the latter part, seems to me to be warning of
    feminist-type movements being indoctrinated into the church.  There is
    no doubt that radical feminists are doing the family unit and relations
    between the sexes great harm today (I don't think this done
    intentionally, but out of ignorance).
    
    This could be way off base, but due to certain religions of that day
    that they contended with (covered in an earlier note), perhaps there
    was a need to warn the church of certain trends to keep God's order.
    
    Perhaps the militant feminism movement has earlier roots than we
    thought?
    
    -steve (who tries to tie everything together whether it makes sense or
    not)  8^)

    This passage was explained to me to be directed at the situation at the
    time, but as we all know, the truths of the Bible extend beyond the
    situation at that time and are applicable now, even though certain
    situations did not exist when the Bible was written, which only helps
    us to recognize that it was directed by God.  
    
    But, the Pastor that explained this to me said that at that time, the
    men came into the temple and the prostitutes would bargain with them
    for their services.  Paul was telling the Christian women that they
    must set themselves apart from the wordly women, by not speaking, by
    covering their heads, by demonstrating their role with their husband,
    which was outlined in Timothy, and making it clear that Christian women
    were different.  It seems to me that this is still required, for
    Christian women to set themselves apart from all other women and to
    clearly display their role.  I would agree with Nancy that the roles
    are quite well defined and it means that women should not be Pastors.
    
    I see the role assignment not as a value judgement, but a definition of
    responsiblity to be exercised by man and wife.  Please do not be
    offended if you have a woman Pastor, I won't argue with you about that
    other than to say I could not be a regular member of your congregation.
    
    In His Love,
    
    Daryl
    

        re .8 -

    I totally agree we must not say well that was just because of the
    time...   and disreguard the teaching as not being relevent today.

    I still believe it is beneficial to know the history and the traditions
    the people were observing when the recommendations were made.  In this
    context I  believe this particular passage is speaking more about
    behavior in worship, not about women preaching and teaching.  That is
    discussed in Timothy to a point that I believe cannot be disputed.
    
    Sparky

Zodhaites (greek scholar) says this:

The question frequently asked concerning this portion of scripture is 
"does the Apostle Paul forbid women to speak at all or to pray or 
prophesy in church?"  The main verse that consitutes the foundation of
all that Pauls says in 1 Corinthians 14:33, "For God is not the author
of confusion but of peace, as in all the  churches of the saints."  The
instruction of Paul is found in verse thirty-nine: "Therefore my brethren, 
desire earnestly to prophesy," meaning, "be zealous about giving forth
the word of God." In verse forty, Paul states, "But let all things be done 
decently and in order."  This as a principle applies to all the churched (v. 34)
although it was born out of a practice existing only in Corinth.

When Pauls says, "Your woemn inthe churches, let them be silent" (v 40), 
it was not an instruction to all the men in general not to permit the 
any woman to speak in church, but to husbands to guide and teach their
own wives lest they produce confusion and disturbance in a meeting.
This may have resulted from the exercising of a gift that they thought 
they had and were anxious to externalize.  One cannot take Paul's 
indirect imperative in 1 Corinthians 4:34, "Let the women keep silent in
the churches," as absolute.  It must be taken in conjunction with what follows:
"for they are not permitted to speak."  The word "speak" should be taken to
mean "uttering sounds that are incoherent and not understood by others."

Paul says that instead it is better to have silence.  Paul uses the same word
"keep silent" to admonish a man who speaks in an unknown tongue without and 
interpreter (vv 28, 30).  What Paulis saying is that only one man must speak
at a time, for if two speak at once, there will be confusion.  The phrase
"let him keep silent" is then qualified to the woman (v 34).  Under no
circumstances does this injunction of Paul indicate that women should not utter 
a word at any time during a church service.  The issue is not men versus women, 
but it is confusion versesu order.  In God's sight, it makes no difference
who causes the confusion.  It is a shame for any woman to bring confusion
into the local church (v 35), even as it is for any man to do so.  

Furthermore, the word gunaikes (1135) should not be translated as "women" 
in its generic sense, but as "wives" (v 34).  It is wives who should submit
(hupotassomai, [5293]) to their own husbands (v 35, from andras [435]).
The whol argument is not the subjection of women to men in general, but of 
wives to their own husbands in the family unit that has beenordained by God
(see note on 1 Timothy 2:9-15).  Paul states the principle that the duty
of the husbands is to restrain their own wives from outbursts during the
worship service.  Whenever Paul speaks of submissiveness by a woman, it is 
always onthe part of a wife to her own husband.  See note Titus 2:1-5.

Dake has the following notes:

1Corinthians 14:34  Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not
permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as
also saith the law.
 35  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home:
for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

[Verse 34] does not contradict the fact that women were free to pray
and prophesy inthe church (1 Cor 11:5; Acts 2:16-21; 21:9; Joel 2:28-32)
See note i below.

[Verse 35] If they will _learn_ anything, not preach, pray, testify, or
prophesy anything.  Let them ask their husbands at home and not in the church.

(Dake is making a distinction by underscoring _learn_ such that the church
worship service was not the right place to interrupt to learn something.
The home Bible study, or prayer cell group, was the right place!)

    Mark,
    
    Having read through your notes, the question I'd ask or thought that
    comes to mind... speaking and preaching are two different things. 
    Being a Pastor requires much more then just speaking... and I still
    stand by my conviction that to *BE* the presbyuteros [sp] of a church
    is the place of a male, not female.
    
    Nancy

Re: .13  (Mark)

>[Verse 34] does not contradict the fact that women were free to pray
>and prophesy inthe church (1 Cor 11:5; Acts 2:16-21; 21:9; Joel 2:28-32)

1 Cor 11:5; Acts 2:16-21; 21:9; Joel 2:28-32 do not say "in the church".

Re: .0  (Jack)
    
>    3. If a woman was unmarried, who would she go to for questions since
    
Her father.

    
    re:-1 
    
    And what of those (like me) who are unmarried and whose father is 
    dead (and has been for 25 years)?  
    

    -1
    
    I'm in that boat.  I chose my authority by choosing a GREAT Pastor. 
    I never make a major decision in my life without consulting him.
    And of course I pray to the Heavenly Father.
    
    Nancy
    

Re: .3  (Julie)

>    She used to be headmistress at a school in Kent and was called to the
>    ministry. If God does not want women ministers, why does he call them?
>    Sylvia has done so much for our Church that I can't think that a
>    mistake has been made.

It sounds like your minister has made some outstanding contributions, despite
the fact that God did not call her to a position of leadership in the church. 

The testimony of scripture is greater than that of man.  When someone comes
to you and says "God called me..." and the scriptures preclude it, then you
you can be sure that God is right and they are wrong and "God did not call
them..."

Hagar made an outstanding contribution to Abraham, by giving him a son, did
she not?

 Hi, Its Hank DAlelio and I'm back again...Ill try to be good :-).

 Re this subject - it was addressed in the previous Christian Conf
 
 ATLANA::CHRISTIAN_V6 Note 383 (St. Paul and Women)

 My contributions are there and havnt changed signifigantly.

 In short, Deborah and Hulda (prophetesses of the Lord) prove that
 although male domination is the norm in all ages for leadership
 of the "people of "God" when the males fail, the Lord chooses
 whomever He wills.

 One can read through this previous note and save some time (perhaps).

                               Hank

>>[Verse 34] does not contradict the fact that women were free to pray
>>and prophesy inthe church (1 Cor 11:5; Acts 2:16-21; 21:9; Joel 2:28-32)
>
>1 Cor 11:5; Acts 2:16-21; 21:9; Joel 2:28-32 do not say "in the church".

(1) I'd be interested in your comments on Zodhiate's commentary, Garth (.12)

(2) You are correct in your comment regarding Dake's commentary, but it 
    brings up persuant questions: where were women to prophesy?  Never in 
    the church setting?  

    Men allowed to prophesy in the church setting. (1 Cor 14:4-5 "He that 
    speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth 
    edifieth the church.  5  I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather 
    that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that 
    speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive 
    edifying."   I suppose one might "reason" that the prophesying that 
    is edifying to the church is not in a church meeting in service, but 
    the church as a body of believers?

    So what we have is that both men and women are allowed to prophesy
    (and what is prophecy, and for whom is it?) but only men are allowed
    to prophesy in a church service setting?

I think we need to better understand the roles of leadership, as well as
the roles of men and women in Christian society.  We are sometimes guilty
of microanalyzing for recipes and prescriptions of who can do what and where.

Mark

    
    
    RE:-1 
    
    Funny you should mention leadership here.  These discussions of 
    women 'participating' at church always leads to questions about 
    when does SERVING become LEADING and when does LEADING become 
    SERVING. 
    
    I attended a church that was so concerned about SERVING being construed
    as LEADING that women were not allowed to SERVE.  Period.  That always
    seemed like overkill.  And also had the appearance of going against 
    everything Paul said about spiritual gifts and making sure you use 
    them correctly.  
    

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

Out of curiosity, Nancy, do you have something called "testimonies" 
in a church service.  I think it is common among evangelical churches
but I may displaying my ignorance.  In my church, upon occasion the Pastor
may call on people to "give their testimony" not unlike some of the
testimonies that this notes conference has seen.  

Do you think women should not be permitted to give testimonies in church?
I am [sincerely] not sure "how far" one would take this verse, though I
hear of some (the Quakers???) who take it very literally, and there is
NO talking during a service. 

Mark

    What's the BTW, me too? :-)
    
    Again, I need to clarify that when looking at the whole of scripture, I
    believe women are not to have *spiritual* authority over men.  As far
    as speaking in church on occasion [not preaching], I see nothing wrong
    with this.  And I believe is validated throughout scripture.
    
    Nancy

    
    
       Just to add some info on all this :^) ! When I was in China (July
    92) I witness what I would say was by the grace of God something that
    we here in the states don't very often see, that is, women Pastors. But 
    under the circumstances my opinion is that it's OK. Why ? because
    sometimes the men there are so afraid of being a christian and the
    consequences that come from that  that the women fill the role. I think
    the story of Debra falls in line here somewhere....Anyway my opinion -
    wait who cares of mw opinion ! ;^) Let's look in the Word.......
    
    
    					Fonz
    

    re:.15
    
> It sounds like your minister has made some outstanding contributions, despite
> the fact that God did not call her to a position of leadership in the church. 
    
    Are you disputing that Sylvia was called by God or that she is a leader in
    the church? As I said, so much has been done in the Church that I can 
    only believe that God is working through her. 
    
> The testimony of scripture is greater than that of man.
    
    I agree.
    
> When someone comes to you and says "God called me..." and the scriptures
> preclude it, then you can be sure that God is right and they are wrong and
> "God did not call them..."
    
    The scriptures do not actually forbid women ministers. The Bible is full 
    of unlikely callings by God. Why are you unable to believe in this one?
                          

I want to say up-front that it is not the issue of women in leadership that
has me contributing in this topic.  Rather it is the misuse of the word of
God for the sake of culture, for the sake of the women functioning in
leadership roles, etc.

One cannot deny that many women are capable of leadership and have made
outstanding contributions in leadership roles.  But that is incidental.

When the scripture says that women should be in submission, we must not say
the opposite -- that women should not necessarily be in submission.  When
scripture calls for the headship of man over women, we must not call for the 
headship of women over men.  When scripture says that in the church women
should be silent, we must not call for them to be vocal. 

The issue is one of *propriety*.

God has ordained roles for men and roles for women, and we are to recognize
these roles as "proper".  They are roles that, according to the scriptures,
are a consequence of creation and the fall, and so are not dependant on the
"culture of the time". 

Re: .21  (Mark)

>>>[Verse 34] does not contradict the fact that women were free to pray
>>>and prophesy inthe church (1 Cor 11:5; Acts 2:16-21; 21:9; Joel 2:28-32)
>>
>>1 Cor 11:5; Acts 2:16-21; 21:9; Joel 2:28-32 do not say "in the church".
>
>(1) I'd be interested in your comments on Zodhiate's commentary, Garth (.12)

In .12, Zodhiates fails to comment on the fact that in 1 Cor 14, the apostle
Paul says, "as the law says".  Although "confusion" is surely also addressed
by Paul in 1 Cor 14, this is besides the issue of women's roles.  Both the
proper role of women and order in the assembly relate to the greater issue of
how men and women should conduct themselves in the church. 

Zodhiates last paragraph reducing the subset from "women" to "wives" leaves
unmarried women up for grabs.  Is it disgraceful for a "wife" to speak, but
not an unmarried woman?  Zodhiates should plug the word "wife" into every
occurrance in 1 Cor 11 and see if it works.

>(2) You are correct in your comment regarding Dake's commentary, but it 
>    brings up persuant questions: where were women to prophesy?  Never in 
>    the church setting?  

First let's agree that it is proper for women to be silent in the churches, as
the scripture says.  Then let's see how we can work out the logistics.

I'd just like to add my support for Nancy and Rob's perspective (.6), which
is also the way I understand it.  1 Corinthians 14:34 is a bit of a red
herring in this context, as it's not referring to the ministry situation,
as Mark covered. 

The ministry limitation is given in 1 Timothy 2:12 : 
 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she 
  must be silent.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.'

This is speaking of a creation ordinance; the basis precludes any local 
cultural context being the ruling here.  There is an essential difference 
between the sexes which makes some roles more appropriate to one or the 
other, and some roles conversely inappropriate.  In spite of the way our 
culture is moving, they *are* different.

Having said that, God has also created us marvellously with the ability to 
move beyond our 'normal' design functions to some extent.  This is not to 
say it is 'another best', or even 'an alternative'.  However, it fills in 
an emergency gap.  Hence in the Bible, you get women in leadership roles, 
like Deborah, in Judges 4:4.  It would seem from the context that this weas
because the men were too weak to fulfill their responsibilities.  Weakened,
presumably, by the unrighteousness, which left no room for the love which
casts out all fear (1 John 4:18).  The telling verses in the Judges passage 
are in 4:8, where Barak, the leader Deborah calls, is so weak as to demand 
that Deborah accompanies him into battle (with the consequences verse 9 
foretells);  Also in 5:1, in Deborah's song, which starts 
 'When the princes in Israel take the lead, when the people willingly offer 
  themselves - praise the LORD!'

- which, to me, suggests that Deborah was longing for those who *should* 
rule to get up on their hind legs and fill the role!

I know of missionary situations where there is an acute shortage of men 
instructed in the word, where a lady missionary preaches to them.  'My 
church' frowns on this, and certainly there are significant cultural
dangers, but in our world of gross cultural confusion, it would seem that
there is a place where this is needed.  Before a man can condemn the
'emergency' practise in every situation, he has to be prepared to step in
and fill the need(s) himself... 

1 Timothy 2:12 is also only referring to the situation as regards the
balance between the sexes in a teaching role.  A testimony (whether spoken
or in song) is not 'teaching', in this sense, rather, a witness.  Neither
is public - communal - prayer, 'teaching'.  Teaching (children's) Sunday
School, or women's meetings is similarly not precluded.  The only
limitation here is in assuming doctrinal authority for a mixed (or men's)
adult congregation.  

Some would interpret this to mean that it is acceptable for a woman to give
teaching when it is considered to be 'under the authority' of a man (elder
or pastor), as specifically sanctioned by him.  Personally I feel that this
comes more under the category of 'emergency' situation, as in the
missionary context.  But I hope I wouldn't be judgmental on this!

The 1 Timothy 2 passage is referring to a line of domestic interaction and
responsibility - and protection - which is expanded a little more in
Ephesians 5:22-33.  It's seen as contraversial in these days of attack on
Bilbical standards and God's design, but this is really just another
pointer to the approaching end, as characterised by the breakdown of
society, and indicated ion 1 Timothy 4, and Romans 1. 

btw - SOC Bill also had (probably still has?) a lady minister.  I believe
that complicated her task above what it would be for the right man, but did
not stop her from being an effective servant of the LORD....

						God bless
								Andrew

Re: .26  (Julie)

>    Are you disputing that Sylvia was called by God or that she is a leader in
>    the church? As I said, so much has been done in the Church that I can 
>    only believe that God is working through her. 
    
I am certainly not in a position to dispute how much good Sylvia has done,
given her role.  But you cannot dispute that it is proper for Sylvia to be "in
submission", to "be silent in the church", to not "teach or have authority
over a man".  What appears to man to be the best way may not be what God 
intended.  We must look beyond the short-term gains and trust that God has
a bigger picture and plan.  How can we say now what the end result would have
been had Silvia not assumed that position?

>    The scriptures do not actually forbid women ministers. The Bible is full 
>    of unlikely callings by God. Why are you unable to believe in this one?
                          
Perhaps you can give some examples from scripture.

  Hmm, well we all seem to agree that an appeal to scripture is necessary.
  This is a noble desire, but as all Christians know therein lies "the rub".

  Many or most Christians feel free to eat pork and shellfish, yet the
  scripture forbids this (I'm being the Devil's advocate). Many or most
  Christians go to church on sunday rather than the Sabbath, similarly
  a goodly percentage of Christians feel free to go to work on saturday
  or sunday, and in fact even the names of the days of the week are of pagan
  origin (monday=Moon Day; tuesday=Zeus' Day, wednesday=Woden's Day, etc)
  and the Scripture forbids us to even mention the names of false gods.
  The point is that to take a strictly literal view of the scripture and
  isolate passages from the rest of Scripture and common sense will probably
  get us into trouble. How about foot-washing? 

  One will notice that Paul's epistles concerning women in the church are
  to the churches in Asia Minor, which had undergone deep Hellinization.
  One of the principles of the Hellenistic Mystery Cults was female dominance
  (generally speaking) and the worship of godesses (Diana of the Ephesians)
  through a female priestess-prostitute combined with practices of sexual 
  abandon in worship. One of the priestess traits was a shaven head. Many of 
  these Hellenists in Corinth had been saved and brought into the church, 
  No doubt this caused confusion, seeing these saints in the church with
  shaven heads and exerting there dominance over their one time worshipers.
  We all know that the Corinthian Christians were less that perfect and that 
  they were ingrained with these cultic doctrines.

  imo, Paul was addressing this local problem of Mystery Cult practises in
  the churches of Asia Minor with his criticisms aimed at the women. In 
  addition we should notice that he dosn't absolutely forbid women praying 
  and prohecying in the church, but that the women do so with their head 
  covered (until their hair grew back) to show their submission to God's 
  *natural* order of male leadership (weak as it was in Corinth).

  therefore (imo), every women who is in submission to a male (father, husband, 
  pastor) and dosnt indicate by her life that she is in defiance of the natural 
  order ("...and he shall rule over thee")  of leadership should be allowed to 
  fully express her gifts of prophecy (preaching) and teaching as her Heavenly 
  Father has blessed her, in addition, if there is no male leadership present 
  then she has Jesus Christ as her Lord with whom there is neither male or 
  female.

                              Hank

  This note could have been fleshed in a little more, but this ground was
  covered in V_6.

  

Hi Hank, 

On the dietary issue, Jesus indicated in Mark 7:19 that this law was
completed, and that now all foods were clean.  Similarly, the day
observance is separated from that given to Israel, by Romans 14:5 and
Colossians 2:16.  These are specific exceptions, although Jesus came to
fulfil rather than set aside the law (Matthew 5:17). 

The fact that we ignore many other laws is not because we are superior, but
because we are inferior. The law was given, not to the 'lawless' gentiles,
but to those who God wanted to bring closest to Himself.  Those to whom God
wanted to teach the best way to live (ideally for them to be an example for
the other nations to follow). 

Hebrews 10:1 tells us that 'the law is only a shadow of the good things that 
are coming.  It is a pointer to 'how to get the best out of life'.  We 
disobey at the cost of our own appreciation of life (a major part of this 
being a walk further from the LORD).  If we began to understand what the 
law really meant, I believe that we would find it exciting to obey, not 
because of legalism, but because of the way the LORD could then dwell in 
our hearts and be reflected through us.  To try to rationalise away laws 
which are inconvenient to 'our' culture is to suppress faith and live by 
rationalism.  Our rational minds are fallen, so the wisdom of man is 
foolishness to God.  Where he stands apart from God, man has to rethink his
principles and ideas constantly; he is on a shifting quick-sand.

Were the principles laid down by Paul to be applied to a local context
only, this would be indicated in Scripture.  As it is, in so many ways, we
have lost the keen-ness of our appreciation for His interaction in our 
personal lives, and 'explain away' so much we could benefit from enjoying.
Note also. that the significant passage (1 Timothy 2:12) is explicitly
based, not on local culture, but on a creation ordinance. 

btw, in your reference to "every women who is in submission to a male
(father, husband...", it sounds as if you are referring back to Numbers 30?
- combining it with the church leadership issue? 

I have some concern in yuor opening statement :
�  Hmm, well we all seem to agree that an appeal to scripture is necessary.
�  This is a noble desire, but as all Christians know therein lies "the rub".

The scripture is the basis for this conference, as something we can have 
common ground on accepting as truth.  'How it is to be understood in 
detail' is bound to raise differences, but as we follow the Holy Spirit 
within, we should generally be able to either agree, or reach a place where
we can say "I cannot agree, but I can accept this as not a primary
salvation issue."  I believe that although we sometimes get, uh, excited,
about issues here, if we can accept the inspiration of the Word of God we
can reach that place together.  As such, I would see an 'appeal to
scripture' as something to unite us, rather than as "the rub"... 

							God bless
								Andrew

    re: .30
    
    My point is that it is not for you to question whether or not God has
    called someone. I can tell you what the end result would have been had
    Sylvia not fulfilled this role: no congregation. They had been falling
    off very badly under our last minister (echos of Andrew's mail) and he
    was leaving anyway. A new minister had to be found and my Church saw 
    Sylvia as God's chosen minister for us. Subsequent events indicate that
    they were right.
    
    As for examples of unlikely callings from scripture: Gideon, Moses,
    Mary and Joseph, Esther, David, Jonah, Paul himself.
    
    God appears to take great delight in calling the most unlikely people
    He can find. Perhaps to show that nothing is impossible to Him.

.28 Garth

>Zodhiates last paragraph reducing the subset from "women" to "wives" leaves
>unmarried women up for grabs.  Is it disgraceful for a "wife" to speak, but
>not an unmarried woman?  Zodhiates should plug the word "wife" into every
>occurrance in 1 Cor 11 and see if it works.

Zodhaites is a very well respected Greek Scholar (and it helps that he's 
greek, too).  Understanding what the apostle is saying, and _especially_
in the context in which he is saying it becomes an important issue when
the Scripture brings up a question.  It may be very apparent to you
what the text is saying, especially the English reckoning of it, and 
especially in isolation of the context.  I suggest that when this is done
in every case of Scripture, meaning is lost.

>>(2) You are correct in your comment regarding Dake's commentary, but it 
>>    brings up persuant questions: where were women to prophesy?  Never in 
>>    the church setting?  
>
>First let's agree that it is proper for women to be silent in the churches, as
>the scripture says.  Then let's see how we can work out the logistics.

Scripture tests scripture, Garth.  You do so yourself when using Scripture
in Exodus to support your Genesis arguments.  But for agreement, I believe
it is indeed proper for women to be silent in the churches when the 
laternative is confusion, which is the context of this passage seems to
indicate given other scriptural texts and the understanding from the
greek.  In other words, keeping silence has a context.

Mark

Re: .33  (Julie)
    
>    My point is that it is not for you to question whether or not God has
>    called someone. 

But don't you see?  It was you who were confident enough to claim that God
called Sylvia.  But it isn't for you to say.  

It wouldn't be for me to say, either, except for an appeal to scripture,
which is God-breathed.  I know that God won't say one thing in the scriptures
and then later endorse something contradictory to what He said.

>I can tell you what the end result would have been had
>    Sylvia not fulfilled this role: no congregation. They had been falling
>    off very badly under our last minister (echos of Andrew's mail) and he
>    was leaving anyway. A new minister had to be found and my Church saw 
>    Sylvia as God's chosen minister for us. Subsequent events indicate that
>    they were right.
    
Ah, but this is from man's viewpoint.  You're focusing on such temporal,
short term things.  You've got to trust God for the bigger picture and the
bigger plan.  Do what God says, and trust in faith that He knows best.

>    As for examples of unlikely callings from scripture: Gideon, Moses,
>    Mary and Joseph, Esther, David, Jonah, Paul himself.
    
Unlikely callings, for sure.  But what I was looking for were examples of women
explicitly being called into leadership positions.  One or two conferences ago,
I was in a major debate with someone who brought up several fallacious 
examples of such.  I didn't know whether you might be relying on any of these.  

Re: .34  (Mark)

>Zodhaites is a very well respected Greek Scholar (and it helps that he's 
>greek, too).  

Bear in mind that I have no quarrel with the fact that the word can be
translated either "woman" or "wife".  I did visit this idea once in the
past myself.  I found that it didn't work, given the context.  The way
the bibles are presently translated works.

>>>(2) You are correct in your comment regarding Dake's commentary, but it 
>>>    brings up persuant questions: where were women to prophesy?  Never in 
>>>    the church setting?  
>>
>>First let's agree that it is proper for women to be silent in the churches,
>>as the scripture says.  Then let's see how we can work out the logistics.
>
>Scripture tests scripture, Garth.  You do so yourself when using Scripture
>in Exodus to support your Genesis arguments.  

But logistics does not test scripture.  That is my point.

>But for agreement, I believe
>it is indeed proper for women to be silent in the churches when the 
>laternative is confusion, which is the context of this passage seems to
>indicate given other scriptural texts and the understanding from the
>greek.  In other words, keeping silence has a context.

"As the Law says" is also part of the context.  Please comment.

"for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" is also part of
the context.  Please comment.

Again, mere confusion in worship logistics is not the issue here.  Propriety
is.

Garth,

>But logistics does not test scripture.  That is my point.

Scripture can test logistics, though.  And if women can prophesy, what
are the logistics (contexts) in which they prophesy?  Never inthe church
setting?  Is this what 1 Corinthians is saying?  Or is the context of
1 Corinthians something else.

I'm comfortable with Zodhiates explanation.  I happen to agree with it.
I have neither the inclination nor luxury to pursue this further. 
I think you have a strong conviction and I'm not interested in taking
that from you, but neither am I of the persuasion that everyone must
adopt your conviction to properly understand the role of women in church.
I would hope that those Christians who have convictions contrary to your
own are still Christians (followers of Christ Jesus as Lord) in your eyes.

Mark

  Re .32    Hi Andrew,

  I was using these "law" examples just to show that we all have varying
  degrees of understanding RE : the Scripture. Other examples are NT 
  believer questions about alcohol, dress code, make up, etc..

  The point was that an "appeal to Scripture" sometimes comes across
  like this : "You are in *willing* contradiction with the Scripture and 
  I'm not" (and I'm guilty of this) although the individual rarely means this.
  And again, i dont know of any Christians who , say, work on Sunday or 
  Saturday that say "well I think I'll violate the Sabbath rest now".

  Most of us have thought these questions through and do what we do (or dont 
  do) as a result of a conviction we have formulated via the Bible because 
  we want to please Our Father. Though (presumably) none of us is perfect
  at it.

  To reiterate, an appeal to Scripture is the only basis of Truth that 
  we have in this conference, but sometimes our "appeal" and the verbalization
  of it carries a self-righteous atmosphere with it (of which I have been 
  guilty and for which I'm sorry)
                                       Hank

Re: .37  (Mark)

>I would hope that those Christians who have convictions contrary to your
>own are still Christians (followers of Christ Jesus as Lord) in your eyes.

Would people please stop reading things like this into my replies?

If I think someone is not a Christian, I am blunt enough to come right out
and say it.  You folks ought to know that much!

Hi Hank,

Ah!  I'm with you now.  That last paragraph said it all.  Sometimes I can 
be a bit late biting that one back too... - especially when I don't 
realise... ;-{

						God bless
								Andrew

    re: .33
    
    I consider that personal experience is a very powerful testimony. I
    have person experience of Sylvia's work within my Church, as do the
    rest of the members of my Church. You do not.
    
    You obviously interpret the scriptures differently. I don't happen to
    believe that the absence of a particular scenario in the Bible means
    that it is prohibited. Our God is a Living God and does not allow man's
    interpretation of His Word to restrict Him.
    
    Incidently, there are no references in the Scriptures to flower
    arrangers, yet I was called to this task myself. Such an idea had never
    occurred to me before and I am not artistic. However, one evening I was
    sitting in the Church and I noticed the flowers. I knew that I could do
    them. I mentioned this to my friend, who immediately took me to speak
    to the lady responsible for the flowers. I discovered that the lady was
    also doing most of the Church cleaning, the catering and a number of
    other jobs and was worn out (it was before Sylvia joined us). I went
    to arrange the flowers once or twice with her to get the basics and
    suddenly it became very apparent to both of us that I had a gift for
    it.
    I am frequently asked whether I have had any training. For the first
    couple of years I hadn't, but last year I did go to a half-day course
    at a florists. This is the only training I have had. At my friend's
    wedding three years ago, Sylvia was asked which florist shop my friend 
    had got her flowers from. They couldn't believe that I had done them. 
    I know that I could not arrange those flowers alone. I just seem to be
    able to arrange them instinctively. 
    
    Flower arrangers are not mentioned in the Bible. Am I mistaken in my
    calling? I don't think so. Subsequent events indicate otherwise. 
    
    As for Sylvia, I've explained that my Church and I believe she was
    called by God and I've explained why I believe this. I think that, if
    you are unable to accept this, we should agree to differ. It isn't
    really worth arguing about, is it?
                                      

    .41
    
    Julie, you are right it isn't worth arguing about.  I respect your
    conviction even though I disagree with it.  I love you as a Sister
    and pray for you, I think you know this.  I wouldn't for the life of me
    cause division between us because of our contrarying views, btw, I
    believe Karen Jennison also has a woman Pastor.  I love her too, why I
    can't wait until her baby is born and jump up and down whilst typing my
    Praise and congratulations at the event [btw, I'm very bouncy]. :-)
    
    It is my conviction to not serve under a female Pastor.  It is your
    conviction that this is okay.  Both sides have been presented.  May
    others whose hearts are undecided find the Truth for themselves.
    
    Your Sis and friend,
    Nancy

  Hi Nancy,

  I couldn't resist butting in...

  What do you think of those thousands of Hebrew men who served under Deborah?


                 :-)  Hank  :-)  

    Hank, she was a judge FIRST, a leader second. - Although she had more
    guts than the lot of them... 8^)

     Re .44

     Amen! She was quite a woman
  

    Hank, my dear ol' thorn-in-the-side [btw, who invited you back in here
    anway? :-) :-)],
    
    I believe that it was not her desire to be in this position... as is
    demonstraed in scripture a few notes back.  
    
    I also believe that I've written elsewhere if not in this string, that
    just as my Pastor has stated as well, that God will call whoever is
    willing... if the men weren't and Deborah was, then so be it.  BTW, who
    rules after Deborah and when was her demise?
    
    Nancy

    I think the Bible says a thing or 2 about women being pastors, but they
    may hold any other position.

Re: .41  (Julie)

>    I consider that personal experience is a very powerful testimony. I
>    have person experience of Sylvia's work within my Church, as do the
>    rest of the members of my Church. You do not.
    
The testimony of scripture is greater and more authoritative than the
testimony of personal experience.  

This is an important point.  If someone came to you and said "I am the Christ",
then proceeded to do things a hundredfold better and more significant than
Sylvia, why would you not believe him in his calling?  Beca.
already preclude him being called of God to be "the Christ".  

>    You obviously interpret the scriptures differently. I don't happen to
>    believe that the absence of a particular scenario in the Bible means

I agree with you.  This is formally known as an "argument from silence". 
Silence proves nothing, and your example of the lack of scriptural references
to flower arrangers illustrates your point nicely.

You are wrong in thinking that this is the basis for my argument, however.
Certainly, the lack of women called of God into leadership positions in the
bible proves nothing in and of itself.

If you will recall, the reason I asked you to give some examples of women in
leadership positions was in response to the following, from your reply .26,
in which you said,

>    The scriptures do not actually forbid women ministers. The Bible is full 
>    of unlikely callings by God. Why are you unable to believe in this one?
                          
I only responded, "Perhaps you can give some examples from scripture."  

>    As for Sylvia, I've explained that my Church and I believe she was
>    called by God and I've explained why I believe this. I think that, if
>    you are unable to accept this, we should agree to differ. It isn't
>    really worth arguing about, is it?
                                      
Well, all scripture is God-breathed, and profitable.  So I think that any
point of scripture in principle is worth arguing about.  And we have already
agreed to differ.

Re: .42  (Nancy)

>    It is my conviction to not serve under a female Pastor.  It is your
>    conviction that this is okay.  

Oh, but I would disagree with you, Nancy!  If you happen be in a position in
which you are faced with serving under a female pastor, then which is more
important, the unity of the church and the gospel, or the issue of whether 
the women was serving God in a proper role?

Think twice before you leave in a huff...


Re: .43  (Henr)

>  What do you think of those thousands of Hebrew men who served under Deborah?

Notice that the scriptures don't declare that she was "called" to lead/judge
Israel.  The scriptures say she "was leading Israel at that time".

But to further illustrate my point to Nancy in .42, imagine if all those
thousands of Hebrew men walked off in a huff.  Imagine if Barak refused to come
when she called him! 

    Re: 363.46

    Hi Nancy,

    Yes, I love playing the devil's advocate (someone has to do it, well
    someone should (i guess)) and I'm willing :-).

    I agree with you up to a point, but just as the business world has
    discovered a plethora of talent among the ranks of the women, (yes
    the Church is not the world), maybe the church has missed a blessing
    by (imo) this misunderstanding of what Paul was trying to do (bring
    the hellenized churches back to the natural order of things-"he shall
    rule over thee") I dont see anything wrong with women preaching and
    teaching as long as they are not in defiance of this principle and
    aren't usurping the male authority (in deed or in spirit) in the local 
    church where they attend.

    I guess we don't really disagree because, if your pastor dosnt allow
    women to preach, then you are bowing to his authority.

    If he did allow it - would you? How would you feel about listening?

    Can't recall who rules *after* Deborah, there was Huldah also.
    Of both these women the Scripture states "the wife of..." showing
    (i believe) that they were each in agreement with the natural order.
    (male dominance-very politically incorrect concept!) I dont remember
    any "demise", they both seem to slip quietly away. I do remember
    that the scripture states that 1) the males had "chickened out" (i dont
    think that was the exact wording) and 2) under Deborah there was an 
    unparalleled (sp) revival in the history of Israel.

    any Deborahs out there???  I guess Elijah will do in a pinch.

                                        Hank

    re.48
    
> If you will recall, the reason I asked you to give some examples of women in
> leadership positions was in response to the following, from your reply .26,
> in which you said,

>>    The scriptures do not actually forbid women ministers. The Bible is full 
>>    of unlikely callings by God. Why are you unable to believe in this one?
    
    I think you mis-read my entry. I have given several references to unlikely 
    callings, as requested, but I didn't say anywhere that there were 
    references in the Bible to women in leadership positions. I simply said
    that it does not forbid women ministers.
    
> Well, all scripture is God-breathed, and profitable.  So I think that any
> point of scripture in principle is worth arguing about.  And we have already
> agreed to differ.

    Depends what you call argument, doesn't it? I can see us going round
    and round in circles because both of us are convinced that we are right
    and neither can actually point out a reference in the Bible that backs
    up what we are saying in plain black and white. This is not productive
    and we are warned against such arguments in Scripture. 
    
    My Church and I believe that Sylvia was called by God to the ministry.
    Sylvia believes this too. You do not. I think we should leave it at
    that. After all, it really isn't that important, is it? What is
    important is that God is so obviously working through Sylvia and the
    Church. It doesn't matter how the event came about.

    Hi Garth... no huff here.
    
    It's a good question, one on which I'll have to ponder [but thats
    another topic :-)].  I guess I'd have to have conformation from the
    Spirit of God that this was the case.  At this present time, with so
    many Godly surrendered men around me, its very difficult to relate to.
    
    Nancy

Hi Hank,

re .50,
�    Can't recall who rules *after* Deborah, there was Huldah also.
�    Of both these women the Scripture states "the wife of..." showing

Gideon came after Deborah (Judges 6), but while there was 40 years peace
following the defest of the Cananites, judges are thought to overlap in 
time, acting in different areas of Israel.

Huldah was a prophetess, not a leader.  She was consulted for the will of 
the LORD in the time of Josiah in 2 Chronicles 34:22.  In relaying the Word 
of the LORD under these specific circumstances, I woudn't say she was 
either a leader or a teacher.  Prophet / prophetess is a different function 
entirely - like Philp's daughters in Acts 21:9, though there's a distinction 
as 'they prophesied', rather than actually being called 'prophetesses'....

Huldah was just called on the once ... ready to serve at the vital time.  
And for it, meritted an inclusion in the eternal Word of God!  How 
wonderful.  Rather like the woman in Matthew 26:13...

							Andrew

Re: .51  (Julie)

>    and neither can actually point out a reference in the Bible that backs
>    up what we are saying in plain black and white. 
    
Here are three:

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the
head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God...  For man did
not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for
woman, but woman for man.  For this reason, and because of the angels,
the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."  (1 Cor 11:3,8-10)

"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.  Did the word of God originate with you?  Or are you the only people
it has reached?  If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let
him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.  If he
ignores this, he himself will be ignored."  (1 Cor 14:33-38)

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.  I do not permit a
woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.  For Adam
was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the
woman who was deceived and became a sinner.  But she will be restored through
childbearing -- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." 
(1 Tim 2:11-15) 

    re: 54
    I don't believe those references back you up. Let me explain why.
    
    The same writer also recommended that we should not marry. He was wrong
    on that occasion, too. The early Christians argued over various points
    of scripture - St. Paul refers in one letter to a disagreement between
    himself and St. Peter over a similar matter. No doubt if women then had
    the same freedom in society as they do now, there would be references
    to similar differences of opinion.                        
    
    Your final reference is interesting. It doesn't mention the church
    specifically at all. Am I to understand that you believe that women
    should behave in this way AT ALL TIMES? I argue that Paul was wrong.
    Adam WAS deceived, not just Eve, and by coming to God, confessing our
    sin and accepting the Lord as our Saviour, He forgives the decendants
    of Eve, too - not just of Adam.
    
    I recommend the Parable of Talents, which Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us
    Himself, to your attention. After all, Paul himself tells us that we
    do not follow Peter or Paul, but Christ.
    If someone believes that they have a clear call from God to do a
    specific task, even after taking the advice of others, praying to God, and 
    having convinced themselves and others that the call is genuine, don't you 
    think that they have a duty to follow that calling, regardless of who or 
    what they are, and that they sin if they fail to obey Him?

    Hi Julie,
    
    I have a slight problem with your argument.  By stating that Paul was
    wrong, you are challanging the authority of the Bible.  When Paul was
    offering his opinion [which was blessed by God or it wouldn't be in
    there], it is stated as such.  This is not the case in the verses
    offered by .54.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    I don't think I'm challenging the authority of the Bible. I'm simply
    saying that I follow Christ, not Paul. Paul himself tells us this is
    right.
    Paul based his teaching on his belief that he would see the return of
    Christ in his own lifetime. That's why he told us we shouldn't get
    married - he thought that we shouldn't waste time. He was wrong in his
    belief. As I've already pointed out, the early Christians had
    disagreements over doctrine. Paul was a man himself and liable to make
    mistakes. His own letters and Acts point this out. For example, when he
    had the disagreement with Barnabas over Mark. Paul thought Mark was
    unreliable, yet later actually asked for him personally. He changed his
    mind about Mark. 
    I'm not saying that Paul was always wrong. He wasn't and I believe that
    he WAS inspired by God. However, I also believe that he was capable,
    like us all, of making mistakes. He wasn't Christ. 
    Peter was appointed by Christ to take care of His flock, yet Paul had
    no qualms about telling him when he believed him to be wrong.
    
    If we take the final reference offered by Garth and obey it, you and I
    should not be in here. We should be at home, learning to be silent and
    submissive.

Hi Julie,

Although Paul was indeed the human author of these
letters, God was the Spiritual author.  No Scripture was
written except by the will of God.  And all Scripture
is God-breathed and true.

Therefore, there is no distinction between what Paul writes
and what God says - they are one and the same.  Although
not all accept this, this conference is based on the belief
that what the Bible says is true just as it claims to be.
That is why your reasoning that Paul is simply wrong
(which equates to God is simply wrong) doesn't wash.

Collis

    Then do you believe that the women of this conference should not take
    part?

    .59
    
    Julie I believe thats a giant leap from what Paul is talking about. 
    Paul is merely stating that in the church women should not usurp
    authority over men... which is what God wants.  God also will call a
    woman when a man with the right surrendered heart can't be found and a
    there is a spiritual need abounding.
    
    Your woman Pastor may very well fit this definition.  I dunno... but
    outside of the Paul statements, you have given some very good food for
    thought.
    
    Nancy
    

>    The same writer also recommended that we should not marry. He was wrong
>    on that occasion, too.

Not wrong, but as is the case with this study about women speaking in 
church, the text regarding Paul's advice MUST be considered in the 
context of several factors - to whom was he speaking - under 
what circumstances - in what context.

However, this illustrates how scripture, when taken out of its context,
can be viewed (yes, eve) too narrowly, which is my contention with 
those brothers and sisters who think "women keep silence" is an admonition
for all women in all church services.  The logic of Paul's advice not
to marry is compelling when applied to this argument.  

However, a few verses along, Paul also says, "...but if you do marry, 
you have not sinned."

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

And btw, Garth: 

>>I would hope that those Christians who have convictions contrary to your
>>own are still Christians (followers of Christ Jesus as Lord) in your eyes.
>
>Would people please stop reading things like this into my replies?
>
>If I think someone is not a Christian, I am blunt enough to come right out
>and say it.  You folks ought to know that much!

Iron sharpening iron, my friend.  Some of us folks don't know that much,
especially some of us who haven't been around long enough to get to know
and love you like some of us do.  And I do, though I don't think you're
correct about your view of this passage about women and church.  ;-)

Mark

    I see what your objection is. Is there any more acceptable way that I can 
    put it? 

    .62
    
    Naw, just rethink your position about Paul being in error... perhaps
    Mark M's note will help.
    
    :-)
    Love you,
    Nancy

It's a bit of a rathole but I heard of a young man in my teen group who
declared the Bible wrong on the basis of the verse, "it is better to
marry than to burn with lust" (which I quote jokingly about why I got
married so young - at 19).  You see, this ran counter to society's
advice, though I doubt he knows he swallowed it, to not get married
based on sexual attraction too quickly because choosing the right mate 
is important.

Well, we all know that's true, but it is only part of the truth.
Advice such as "getting married won't solve the problem of an
out of wedlock pregnancy" is true also but the better truth is that
teens should not engage in sex before they get married.  When I say
better truth, I mean over-arching.  (Jesus was asked about divorce
in the gospel of Matthew - he addressed the matter of divorce by
giving them the overarching principle - the "way it was meant to
be from the beginning.")

In this "burning" text, Paul recognizes the pitfalls of lust, a powerful 
drug, and what it can lead to.  Sometimes that lust can be focused even 
on your sweetheart (which would be my case, eh?).  Joy and I married 
because we knew that we knew that we knew we were right for each other.
So the burning lust admonition wasn't really much of a factor - certainly.
However, the principle of the verse panned out.

Oh, yes, the point:  this young man did not understand the context 
in which the verse was given, couldn't understand it, and so discarded
it - without realizing (I think) what discarding it really means.
For passages we don't understand readily, it is good to "study to
shew thyself approved" and attempt to understand the context and
meaning, as opposed to dismissing it.  (Garth is right about this.
We certainly should NOT dismiss scripture.)  However, as we can see, 
interpreting the meaning from the context and other scripture can be
a challenge, especially when we are tinged with factors that sway our
dispositions.  Objectivity is a difficult thing to balance.

Having said that, I believe the Scripture regarding the women keeping
silence is true, and align myself with Zodhiates explanation of the
context.  (.31? or around there).

Mark

    I'd just like to clarify that I meant that Paul was wrong in his belief
    that he would see the return of Christ in his own lifetime. I'd also
    like to confirm that I do believe that the Bible is God-inspired and
    that I try (note the "try" :-)) to live by what I believe God is
    telling me through His word.
    I also agree with what Mark has said.

>   I'd just like to clarify that I meant that Paul was wrong in his belief
>   that he would see the return of Christ in his own lifetime.
    
    I know this isn't relative to the immediate topic, but I thought I'd
    address this point.
    
    2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of
        our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
      2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by
        spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of
        Christ is at hand.
    
    Mark L.

    !       <<< Note 363.57 by SUBURB::ODONNELLJ "Julie O'Donnell" >>>
    
    ! Peter was appointed by Christ to take care of His flock, yet Paul had
    ! no qualms about telling him when he believed him to be wrong.
    	Not really meaning to open a jar of worms here (jars can be closed
       ;^) ) BUT Peter was not the only one appointed to take of the flock.
       Christ had 10 other disciples that were to spread the word and to
       fostor "flocks" - be careful not to raise Peter above any of the
      other apostles as some have...
    
       Three times Peter denied Christ, and three times Christ asked him,
    "Do you love me?"   Christ was bring Peter back on track. He was not
     making him the leader (in place of Himself) above anyone else...
    
    
    PDM
    
    
    

    Christ did tell Peter that he was the Rock on which He would build His
    Church. I don't mean to lessen the role of the other discipes
    or to set Peter up above the others, and the point I really wanted to
    make was that Paul was prepared to disagree publically with Peter when he 
    believed Peter to be wrong.

    I'm curious Julie what scripture are you referencing?

    (How do I say this?)
    
    When Simon was renamed by Jesus to Peter, the Rock.

    I know where the scripture is for that event :-)
    ... I was more curious as to what scripture where Paul called Peter 
    on wrong doings... 
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    Sorry - should have realised that! 
    
    He didn't call Peter on wrong doings, he says he opposed him on his
    teaching regarding Gentiles. I must look up the reference for you - I
    can remember the actual words, but not the reference.
    
    Perhaps it might help to see what I'm trying to get at if I say that I
    believe St. Paul's letters to be guidelines to living a good Christian
    life. They should be obeyed where possible, but if we have to choose
    between obeying Paul and obeying God, we should disregard Paul's
    teaching. Paul couldn't put every eventuality into his letters (he'd
    never have been able to write as many letters if he had!) and I believe
    he'd be the first to agree that we should follow God's calling rather
    than Paul's teaching.
    
    A personal example of this is his teaching in Ephesians for children to
    obey their parents because it is the right thing to do. There are no
    qualifiers to this command, it is not his opinion and, in most
    instances, it is good advice. I have tried to obey it.
    However, there comes a time, particularly in my own case, when to obey
    my physical parents is to disobey my God. I have found this to be in my
    childhood and in my adult life too. So I have had to obey God, but
    DISOBEY my parents and Paul's teaching.
    
    To give you an example:
    I came home from Sunday School one day absolutely full of the fact that
    I had given my life to God that morning. I'm sure you know the feeling!
    When I excitedly told my father, he was very upset. Christian fathers
    among you - imagine how you'd feel if your much loved eldest child came
    home and announced that they'd been converted to Hinduism or something
    and you'll have some idea of how my father felt. I was told that my
    mother WOULD have me christened as a baby and that was as far as he was
    prepared to allow me to go. I was heartbroken, but I tried to obey him.
    He didn't like me going to Church because he could see that I was going
    away from him but he didn't actually forbid it. Both my parents were
    opposed to my getting baptised.
    Unfortunately, it was made more and more clear that I SHOULD go further
    and that God was calling me to His service by being baptised. At almost
    15 years old (five years after I gave my life to God)), I had to disobey 
    my father and St. Paul's teaching and obey that calling. My father didn't 
    attend my baptism, although my mother did, and he was unable to share in 
    my joy at belonging fully to God.

>    He didn't call Peter on wrong doings, he says he opposed him on his
>    teaching regarding Gentiles. I must look up the reference for you - I
>    can remember the actual words, but not the reference.

 
   11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to
   the face, because he was to be blamed.
   12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat
   with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew
   and separated himself, fearing them which were of the
   circumcision.
   13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him;
   insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their
   dissimulation.
   14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according
   to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If
   thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not
   as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do
   the Jews?

   Galatians 2:11-14 (KJV)

In Him,

Graham

    Thanks, Graham - that's the one.                    

| <<< Note 363.58 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON "DCU fees?  NO!!!" >>>



| Although Paul was indeed the human author of these letters, God was the 
| Spiritual author.  No Scripture was written except by the will of God.  
| And all Scripture is God-breathed and true.

	Collis, one might not question it that if Paul didn't say, "What I
am about to say is NOT from God, but my own opinion." One would think if God
was actually running the show on this one and wanted to let others know it is
God-breathed, He would not let someone state their opinion AND in a book that
is God -breathed would not have someone say what they are about to say is NOT
from God.




Glen

Glen,

You've asked that one, and been answered, time and time again, both here 
and in other conferences.  It's a failed argument.  In fact, you haven't 
even replied querying the explanation - you've just asked it somewhere 
else.  What difficulty do you have with what has been explained?

							Andrew

    My wife and I were married by a woman pastor.  I felt guilty about this
    for years and we recently went and renewed our vows to make sure we
    weren't living in sin.
    
    :-) x 1000

Not the one in your personal name ... ?
					(thought it was Loretta?)


							Andrew 


;-} ;-} ;-} ;-} ;-} ;-} ;-} ;-} ;-} ;-} ;-} ;-} ;-} ;-{

!           <<< Note 363.68 by SUBURB::ODONNELLJ "Julie O'Donnell" >>>

!    Christ did tell Peter that he was the Rock on which He would build His
!    Church. I don't mean to lessen the role of the other discipes
!    or to set Peter up above the others,
    
    Julie, I would ask that you reread this scripture. You may find that
    the word rock (petra) and Peter (petro) are the same, but Christ was
    refering to that which Peter had said in the preceeded verse, where
    he asked Peter, who is it that you say I am? Peter replied, "the
    Christ."  - This is the rock which Christ was refering to, - not
    Peter... Christ was using a play of the words rock to personalize it
    to Peter, that Jesus is the true ROCK. You know like in David's
    psalms, where he writes....."You are my Rock and my redeemer", when
    refering to the Lord.
    
    
    PDM
    
    ps. I apologize for not providing the text proff passages, I thought I
        had my Bible with me this morning, but I found it was not in my
    brief case,...therefore, it must be in my car...(I think...) 8^)

    Cephas - A small stone or pebble.
    
    Translated:  Thou art a stone and upon this rock (i.e. The Rock
    of Girbralter) I will build my Church!!
    
    -Jack

    re:.75
    
    As I believe that Paul was a godly man, I don't think that this is a
    good reason to disregard entirely his teaching. Perhaps this isn't what
    you meant to suggest? I think that his teaching is a good guideline to
    Christian living, but that we should follow God's calling when there is
    a conflict.
    
    re: .79
    
    I must admit this is the first time I've heard this. I've always 
    understood Christ to refer to Peter as the Rock, not to Himself.
    

| <<< Note 363.76 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>


| You've asked that one, and been answered, time and time again, both here
| and in other conferences.  It's a failed argument.  In fact, you haven't
| even replied querying the explanation - you've just asked it somewhere
| else.  What difficulty do you have with what has been explained?

	Andrew, true, people have given answers. But none of them ever address
it. With an answer that yes Pauls opinion is in the Bible but doesn't go
against any of the Scriptures does not answer the questions of why is there a
human opinion in a book written by God? Why is there something in a book that
is supposed to be God-breathed that says, "What I am about to say is not from
God, but my own opinion." These questions aren't addressed, they are just given
an answer that says it doesn't go against Scripture. Sorry, it doesn't answer
it, all it does is tries to justify it. The 2 are different ya know.



Glen

Glen,

You have not listened carefully at all.  If you had, you
would realize that

 - your question assumes things that are not true
 - the answer has been given a number of times

We understand that you don't accept the answer.  Regardless,
it is still the answer.  Refusing to accept it makes it no
less true.

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Collis

    Hi Julie,
    
    What PDM has written is exactly how I've been taught all my Christian
    life about that scripture and when broken down in its full context
    reveals a Truth.
    
    Christ is the Rock upon which we build, not Peter. :-)
    
    Love you,
    Nancy

| <<< Note 363.84 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON "DCU fees?  NO!!!" >>>


| - your question assumes things that are not true


	Collis, I guess I don't know where you are coming from. Maybe you can
help me out:


BELIEF : The Bible is the inerrant Word of God.


BELIEF : The Bible is God Breathed


FACT : Paul says in the Bible, "What I am about to say is not from God, but is 
       my opinion" 


FACT : A human opinion is not something from God, but something from the human.


QUESTION : How can the Bible be God breathed if there is a human opinion in it?


QUESTION : How can the Bible be the Word of God if there is a human opinion
	   in it?


USUAL ANSWER : Paul's opinion does not go against Scripture so the Bible 
	       remains inerrant.


	So please show me 2 things if you would. One, where are the assumptions
in the questions being asked, and two, please show me where in the USUAL ANSWER
does it address the questions being asked?


| We understand that you don't accept the answer.  

	Accept Collis? How can I accept an answer that was never given?



Glen

    FACT:  The meaning of the passage is not that Paul is stating his
           opinion, but that there is no previous direction in the
           scriptures concerning what he is addressing.
    
    FACT:  In the same passage, Paul indicates that he is speaking under
           the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
    
    FACT:  Part of the apostolic ministry was the completion of the
           scriptures.
    
    FACT:  This has been explained to Glen *MULTIPLE* times before.
    
    FACT:  Glen refuses to accept this.
    
    Mark L.

    .87
    
    FACT:  I like you. :-)

| <<< Note 363.87 by CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK "Mark Lovik" >>>



| FACT:  The meaning of the passage is not that Paul is stating his opinion, 
| but that there is no previous direction in the scriptures concerning what he 
| is addressing.

QUESTION: If the Bible is God breathed, why is there a human opinion in there?
	  If the Bible is the Word of God, why is there a human opinion in
	  there?

| FACT:  In the same passage, Paul indicates that he is speaking under the 
| inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

QUESTION : If Paul is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then 
	   why does he give his opinion and not give the credit to the Holy
	   Spirit? For Paul to say this is his opinion when the Holy Spirit is
	   guiding him, then doesn't that bring a human influence to the Bible?

| FACT:  Part of the apostolic ministry was the completion of the scriptures.

	You might want to explain this one a little more for me. Thanks.



Glen

    Glen,
    
    Please refer to the last two facts provided.

Regarding Glen Silva:

See note 152.* especially 152.107.

(cycles, Glen, just like I said)

    .73
    
    Hi Julie,
    
    In regards to the scripture of Paul to Peter.  I believe what is
    written here is an exhortation.  Example:
    
    I tell my Sunday School Class, "Girls, as a Christian you should follow
    holiness and separation."  And as I go out amongst them in their
    neighborhoods, I go into one of there homes and drink a beer or do some
    drugs.  I have just enmeshed myself into their culture, and not kept
    the commandment of holiness and separation.
    
    This was Paul's exhortation to Peter.  Peter, come out from the
    Gentiles and be separate follow the commandments of God while
    understandiing the Gentiles ways.  In other words, WALK the TALK.
    
    That's my understanding.  Now do you think that Peter though loved by
    Jesus and chosen for a specific calling was incapable of sin because of
    that love and calling?
    
    I don't believe that you do, but if so, remember Peter denied Christ
    thrice when Christ was arrested.
    
    You see Peter though good hearted was weak in Character at times... He
    not only denied Christ, he also was influenced by the Gentiles as
    indicated in the referenced scripture of .73.  When he should have been
    the influencer, he was the influenced.
    
    Now Peter did great things for God, and God's grace is also eminent in
    Peter's subsequent preaching after his denial of Christ and the many
    the came to know Christ as a result... but Peter wasn't perfect because
    of Jesus' love or Peter's chosen ministry by Christ.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    

	Mark, I read topic 152. I thought notes 4,11,13,16,21,51,71,83,85 & 97
brought up good points that weren't really answered. .99 says a lot too and
.105 confirms it.


Glen

Hi Glen,

It doesn't matter how many times we answer the question.  That's
the point.  The answer will always be the same (the truth of the
answer hasn't changed one iota in the past 2 years) and, unless
there is a heart change or a work of God that enables you
to comprehend/accept/believe what has been said, it will be
pointless.

Collis

.93

drone drone drone drone

  your persistent unwilliness is amazing, nonetheless.
  something to be proud of?

See note 30.11 and .12,and if I could find another, I'll post it for you.

MM

    re.92
    
    I believe that both Peter and Paul were capable of sin (only Jesus was
    not) and that they made mistakes on occasion as a result. I just wanted 
    to point out that Paul was not afraid to publicly correct Peter when he 
    believed him to be wrong and that there were differences of opinion 
    between members of the early Church. 
    
    Regarding the scripture of Simon being renamed to Peter, I suppose that 
    it must be a difference between denominations whether Peter or Christ
    was referred to.
               

   Uh, perhaps, just perhaps Paul was dealing with a local problem as has been
   stated before and that the problem (Hellenistic female priestcraft) having 
   been cleaned up , Paul was able then to say that there is no more male or
   female, but a new creature in Christ.

   Also, I for one dont think a little common sense is ok to apply to the
   interpretation of scripture.

   After all Paul sent Onesimus back to his master; the scriptures speak to
   slaves and their duty to their masters, but does this mean that God approves
   of slavery?

   How about the commandment to pluck out an offending eye or hack off ones
   right hand if it offends you?  I havnt seen any bloody stumps amongst 
   Christians lately.

   How about in I John ... "you have no need that any MAN should teach you"
   Can we apply common sense here or does this passage disallow men (or anyone)
   from teaching the children of God spiritual things?

   The point is if one has learned and/or spiritual growth has resulted from
   the Bible teachings of a woman, cant we draw a common sense conclusion?

   Any one-handed, one eyed challangers?   :-)  

                                Hank

	Great notes Mark. I do hope someday you'll actually follow them.



Glen

    
>    Regarding the scripture of Simon being renamed to Peter, I suppose that 
>    it must be a difference between denominations whether Peter or Christ
>    was referred to.
               


 I've heard that what was referred to in this passage is neither Peter or
 Christ, but the confession that Peter made, that Jesus is the Christ, the
 son of the living God.  And upon that confession will the church be built.




Jim

.98

Take all that you have written, and take all I have written.
Analyze.  Consider whether one builds up or tears down.
One can deny the Truth, but one cannot change it.

	Mark, I already did that. That's why I said you should follow what the
notes you told me to read.


Glen

 Moderator request:



 Please refrain from personal jabs in notes.





 Jim Co Mod.

Hank,
    
    Precept upon preceipt, scripture upon scripture...
    
   >Uh, perhaps, just perhaps Paul was dealing with a local problem as has been
   >stated before and that the problem (Hellenistic female priestcraft) having 
   >been cleaned up , Paul was able then to say that there is no more male or
   >female, but a new creature in Christ.
    
    I don't think so.  When you have scripture validate scripture, I go
    back and see where God set Man over the Woman time and time again. 
    Exceptions, God *can* and *will* do what he needs to do for His work. 
    
    The admonishment of Paul about woman teaching men is confirmed
    throughout scripture.
    

   >Also, I for one dont think a little common sense is ok to apply to the
   >interpretation of scripture.
    
    Did you really mean to say this?
    

   >After all Paul sent Onesimus back to his master; the scriptures speak to
   >slaves and their duty to their masters, but does this mean that God approves
   >of slavery?
    
    I'd say yes, but not in the sense of the Slavery of Blacks...  If you
    look at the Bible closely, again precept upon precept, you'll find that
    Hank you are a Slave to Digital and Digital is your Master... its a
    job... and while you are on this job, your loyalty, your integrity
    requires you to obey the Master and do the job requested.
    

   >How about the commandment to pluck out an offending eye or hack off ones
   >right hand if it offends you?  I havnt seen any bloody stumps amongst 
   >Christians lately.
    
    I agree with this and struggle with it myself.  I wonder how pure and
    holy a people we'd be, if we truly put aside those things that cause us
    to sin...   For instance, if you are alcoholic and haven't had a drink
    for years and there is a billboard advertising beer and everytime you
    *see* it, your mouth starts to water... DON'T DRIVE BY THAT SIGN
    ANYMORE... PLUCK IT OUT OF YOUR EYE! :-)  Yeah you may have to add some
    miles on your route, but I do believe that this what we are supposed to
    do.  We are called to be a holy people.
    
>   How about in I John ... "you have no need that any MAN should teach you"
>   Can we apply common sense here or does this passage disallow men (or anyone)
>   from teaching the children of God spiritual things?
    
    Again precept upon precept, what was Paul telling the church in
    Corinth?  Are you a follower of Christ or a follower of Paul?

>   The point is if one has learned and/or spiritual growth has resulted from
>   the Bible teachings of a woman, cant we draw a common sense conclusion?

    As long as it doesn't contradict God's word... ABSOLUTELY. 
    
>   Any one-handed, one eyed challangers?   :-)  
    
    Yes :-)
    
    Nancy
    

    

 The concept of slavery at the time Paul was writing was considerably different
 than the slavery that existed in this country.





Jim

  Well Nancy, there you go again...

  You've proven me right again with your skilled exposition of the Word.
                              
  I'm sure that all the men in this conference will attest to the fact
  (as I do) that we have been blessed by the exercise of your gift from
  the Father of lights and we thank Him for it.

  keep up the good work, you're an excellent teacher and we appreciate it.

                              Hank

  "For where two or three of you are gathered in my name..."

    -1
    
    :-)
    
    Hank, sarcasm does become you so well.
    
    So, you bring this note in a conference at work and compare it to
    Sunday School in Church?  I don't think so.  

.107	

Which brings me back to my questions:  are we saying that women can do
such-and-such here but not there, etc?  An before we defend ourselves
in saying that the Bible says they can here but not there, I thought Hank's 
reference to Scripture about letting no man teach you illustrate the point 
of taking scripture out of context is applicable to these verses as well.

MM

    When reading the scripture from Paul, he was addressing the church
    behaviors.  The home is addressed in other scriptures.  However, when
    looking at the virtuous woman and her roles as in Proverbs 31, it is
    clearly written that she is speaking and leading in areas of business.
    
    Perhaps, I have a bit to learn about my conviction and where it
    applies... if I it does apply to the conference [as I may be
    convicted], you will find that while I'll struggle with obedience, it
    will come.
    
    Nancy

  Re : .107

  Oh no Nancy, you don't get off that easy...

  I meant it - you are a good teacher and I do appreciate your insight.

  No one at my Sunday school would be surprised at anything I would say.
  They know me.

  When the Pastor visited us for membership , I fessed up as to being a 
  a renegade. He agreed to let us join if I agreed to not make trouble.
  Actually he agrees with those who feel women should not preach-teach
  unless under the most unusual circumstances.

  I tried to make my opinion known concerning this matter in Sunday School 
  and the pastor gave me a polite look to remind me of our agreement.
  So I'm a good boy there, but I always let my opinion be know once anyway.
  Thats ok with him. 

  Where and what is "The Church"?

  "For where two or three of you (men?) are gathered together in my name..."


                                  Hank

    Well, I guess I've bit my tongue (fingers?) long enough in this topic. :-)
    
    My take:  the Bible is clear with regard to the roles of men and women
    when it comes to teaching and leadership *in the church*.  I believe
    that this is referring to "formal" times of the church's gathering,
    when expressing God's government and the headship of the Lord Jesus. 
    (As an aside, I believe that the issue of head coverings at these
    occasions is a parallel consideration.)
    
    You might rightly ask, is there ever a time when the church is not to
    have this expression?  Indeed, I believe there are such times.  Though
    we may gather in the same place, with many of the same people, I
    believe that the "focus" of the gathering makes all the difference. 
    When we are gathered for worship, prayer, or teaching (to the church),
    I believe that the forementioned principals apply.  However, when we
    are gathered for a time of mutual sharing or evangelism, I believe that
    it is perfectly appropriate for the women to share (and, at such times,
    head coverings are inappropriate).  (Even so, I believe that the
    leading of such times should generally be done by the men.)  As well,
    we have had times of meetings for a particular emphasis (married
    couples, parents, etc.) where we would be greatly diminished were it
    not for the instruction of godly women.
    
    Should men ever receive instruction from a woman.  Absoutely!  Consider:
    Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an
        eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
     25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent
        in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the
        Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
     26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila
        and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded
        unto him the way of God more perfectly.
    
    As others have mentioned, the scriptures give women responsibilities
    for teaching other women and children as well.
    
    Mark L.

    .111
    
    Well, Markel, whilst I know we have our differences in other areas of
    doctrine, we do agree here.
    
    Nancy

    This has nothing to do with the topic, but my context-alert flag went
    up when I read Hank's notes.
    
> Note 363.106
>
>  "For where two or three of you are gathered in my name..."
    
> Note 363.110
>
>  "For where two or three of you (men?) are gathered together in my name..."
    
    Please be aware that Matt. 18:20 ("For where two or three are gathered
    together in My name, I am there in the midst of them") is a verse which
    tells us about the authority/responsibility Christians have in
    resolving disputes amongst themselves. This verse is one of the most
    famous out-of-context examples, so I sometimes take it upon myself to
    remind us that its context is within the realm of church discipline.
    
    Now back to our regularly-scheduled discussion.
    
    	BD�

    Re: 363.113 (BD�)
    
    Leave it to a FORTRAN programmer.... :-) :-)
    
    One additional note on the side-note:
>  "For where two or three of you are gathered in my name..."
    
    I have been told that the tense of the "are gathered" is best
    understood (in English) to be "have been gathered", that is, it is
    speaking of the place where the Lord has gathered His people.  As well,
    "in my name" might be translated "unto my name".  I understand it to be
    speaking that it is the Lord Who does the gathering, to the place where
    He has put His name.  I see it as the continuing (in a sense) the
    principle of the Old Testament verses such as:  "That thou shalt take
    of the first of all the fruit of the earth, which thou shalt bring of
    thy land that the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt put it in a
    basket, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose
    to place his name there."  (Deut. 26:2)
    
    Mark L.

I just looked it up in LOGOS.

Indeed, the verb "gathered" is in the Perfect tense, which suggests an action
that as "been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be
repeated."  It has been *done*.  It is also in the passive mood, which
implies that the people are *being* gathered by something outside themselves.
It is not they who gather themselves.  And the word "in" is more often
translated as "unto" or "into."

Cool.  Gives it a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

Paul

    Whew!  I'm glad I was supported by LOGOS.  (I'd better be careful what
    I say in here!  People are checking to see if I'm right! :-) :-) )
    
    Mark L.

  Thats good exposition, The point I was trying to make without an
  explanation is that the local church differs from the Universal Church
  in that all the members of the Universal Church are saved.

  Many in the conference are using the local church as the measure of 
  what disciplinary guidelines spiritual teaching is to be done as to 
  who and whatever,  when in reality those who are redeemed are always 
  in "Church" that is they are always in the Body of Christ where there 
  is no male or female, and in fact the Spirit Christ himself (a male)
  does the teaching through His gifted earthen vessels (male or female).

         No?

                          Hank

>       No?
    
    No.  There is neither male nor female, bond nor free, Jew nor Greek,
    etc., when it comes to our standing and value in the eyes of God.  For
    each, what matters is that we are a new creation in Christ Jesus.
    
    However, when it comes to functions in the Body of Christ, the
    Scriptures make clear distinctions between men and woman in a number of
    cases.  The distinctions never say that one is more valuable than the
    other, but the way that God has chosen to work.
    
    Mark L.

    -2
    
    Hank,
    
    I happen to believe that there is no Universal Church until Christ
    comes again and gathers the saints together.  
    
    Another exposition on the verses talking of the gathering of the body
    of Christ at his return, maybe? :-) :-)
    
    

    re: Mark L.
    
    Or - can a hand say to a foot "I have no need of you"?  What one part
    of the body can survive without the others?  Other than the Head
    (Messiah) is any one part more exalted than the others?  And not only
    are there many parts of the body of Messiah, but there are many varied
    gifts - but only one Giver.
    
    re: Nancy
    
    I disagree with .119.   "For you *are*" (that's now) "members of one
    body".  I have LOGOS too (at home) and will check it out futher, but in
    the meantime - one could take .119 to its logical conclusion and assume
    that because you and I are not in the same local congregation, we are
    not part of the same body.  Are you and I not both believers?  Is
    Messiah divided?
    
    Steve

   Ok, what you say is acceptable as to the fact that you believe it to
   be so, but as i've indicated before, my opinion is that those edicts
   layed down in the pauline epistles were dealing with specific problems
   localised amongst the Hellenised Christians.
  
   Hellenization included the idea of role-reversal in male and female.
   Women cut their hair short (or shaved it off if they were temple
   priestesses), while males grew it long and braided it, amongst many other
   bizzare practices. Paul said it is a shame for a man to have long hair, 
   did he mean that out of the Greek local context (what about Samson and 
   all the other Nazirites)?

   These pratices came down from the worship of Nimrod and Semaramis (his 
   mother-wife), they included many practices which were against nature and
   Paul was trying to "nip it in the bud". The most flagrant offenders 
   appeared to be the Corinthian Christians. The book of Revelation appears
   also to allude to these practices in refering to the "prophetess Jezebel"
   who taught Christs' servants to commit fornication.

   contrarily are the prophetesses Deborah, Hulda, Anna and may other women
   (Mary, Martha...etc, etc) used by Our Heavenly Father to teach males.

   We've beat it to death...  I'm through :-)  :-)  .

                    Hank

   

    
    I do have a question for 828.9. 
    
    What is the purpose of this posting? 
    
    Thanks. 
    
    Mary Jo 
    

RE: <<< Note 828.10 by CSC32::HOEPNER "A closed mouth gathers no feet" >>>

>>    What is the purpose of this posting? 
     
        I believe that the scripture explicitly proscribes the situation in
        .0, that is, a woman having authority over and teaching men in a
        church assembly.  The purpose is to inform the believer of an
	unbiblical practice in her church.  As you have said, this has been
	beaten to death, and by better "scholars" than myself.  Only, let
	the Holy Ghost of God do the interpreting for the believer, and let
	His Word speak for itself. 

	2nd Peter 1
	  (20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of
	  any private interpretation.
	  (21) For the prophecy came not in olde time by the will of man:
	  but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

	2nd Peter 2
	  (1) But there were false prophets also among the people, even as
	  there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring
	  in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and
	  bring upon themselves swift destruction.
	  (2) And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of
	  whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
	  (3) And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make
	  merchandise of you:

	Job 28:28
	  And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is
	  wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

    While I agree that it is God's wishes that women not be pastors, I also
    know that when there aren't men around to hold the position a woman may
    be called.  
    
    It's been beat to death, yes... but at the same time, I think one
    should ask if the positions were filled by willing men, women wouldn't
    find the positions.

    
    And what if this woman was/is gifted to be a teacher by God?  (Or 
    prophets like Phillip's daughters?)  
    
    And if women were never to teach men under any circumstances, why 
    didn't Jesus tell the woman at the well to go back and get her husbands
    so he could talk to them so they could go back to the village to spread
    the word that the Messiah had indeed come? 
    
    Mary Jo 
    

RE: <<< Note 363.124 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

        Greetings, dear sister Nancy.  Though there may be a dearth of
        "willing" men to fill the offices in any particular assembly, the
        solution is not sin.  From what I can tell, this is not one of
        God's wishes, like He "would" that all men be saved, but one of His
        commandments. "But I suffer not.." means that it must not be
        tolerated.  It is a negative imperative.  Please ask God to search
        your hearts on this matter and let Him reveal to you the truth.
        Though some women in the Bible held positions of civil authority,
        (Judges), there are none I can think of that ever served as
        teachers or held positions of authority in the synagogue or temple.
	This never precluded women from being used of God as prophetesses
	or deaconesses (servants).  Neither of these positions, however, is
	one of authority, notwithstanding the unscriptural "deacon boards".

        Incidentally, some of the greatest preachers were "unwilling". 
        Consider Moses, Jonah, Jeremiah.  I am sorry for churches that have
        no men with anything of import to say from the Word of God other
        than the pastor.  Perhaps it is becaused they are not taught and
        encouraged to lead their families in worhship at home.  Perhaps
	fellowship ends at the church door after the service.

	Peace and blessings in the Lord,
		TonyC

    Being a teacher is a natural gift for many women as our natural
    behavior as mothers is constantly teaching.  To use the term "gift" as
    a teacher would mean a calling.  I don't believe that women should be
    placed over men in an authoritative role, i.e, as pastor or ass't
    pastor.  However, I will not stand in judgement of women who do so
    because quite honestly that is between them and God.
    
    At the same time, while men may be the preferred candidate for
    pastoring, unfortunately to the name of Christianity too many men have
    been found to be an embarassment to the name of Jesus.
    
    I am NOT trying to pit men against women, but at the same time, some of
    the most ungodly displays of character have come from those in whom
    many families have placed their trust, their tithe and their efforts.

>        Greetings, dear sister Nancy.  Though there may be a dearth of
>        "willing" men to fill the offices in any particular assembly, the
>        solution is not sin.  From what I can tell, this is not one of
>        God's wishes, like He "would" that all men be saved, but one of His
>        commandments. "But I suffer not.." means that it must not be
>        tolerated.  It is a negative imperative.  

        If having a woman teach men is a sin then, then an awful lot of 
        sin is praised in other passages in the Bible, and Paul contradicts
        himself in several places.

        Leslie

PS. A prophet, male or female, taught, rebuked, chastised, and warned in God's
    name those to whom they spoke. A prophet was not like a fortune-teller, 
    reading the future, although God did sometimes reveal things about the 
    future through them. Their primary purpose was to bring people to 
    repentence and to return to God.

This is a subject upon which there is going to be a different balance reached
by different people, because there is support in the Word for both sides.

The scripture Tony posted, and the one in Corinthians about women being
silent in church, seem pretty specific.  Yet as Mary Jo points out, women
were prophets, women were judges, women were in positions of prominence in
the early church, all also described by scripture.

People today tend to fall into one or the other of the extremes, neither of
which takes into account the scriptures at the other extreme.  To say that
women should never speak or be in authority under any circumstances doesn't
fit with instructions to women on how to prophesy in the assembly, nor does
it fit with women judges being a judge in authority over men.

To say that there is absolutely no distinction between men and women in
church leadership doesn't take into account the scriptures that say clearly
that there is a distinction.

Where the exact balance is, I don't know.  Women are clearly blessed by God
in at least some circumstances to be in positions of speaking and of
authority.  There is also clearly a distinction in the Bible between the
roles of men and women.

I only posted this because it might be worth noting before we dive into this
discussion that if people stay at the extremes we're not going to come to
agreement.  That's OK, I don't mind disagreement over issues like this, I
understand that there is support for both positions and I respect the fact
that people are going to balance the scriptures differently.

Paul

P.S.  I'd also just like to note that this discussion is profoundly different
from some other discussions that we've had in here, in that there is
significant Biblical support on BOTH sides of the question.  Other questions
that have been disputed have essentially no Biblical support on one side of
the question.  In such a case, the same respect for balance does not apply.

RE: <<< Note 363.125 by CSC32::HOEPNER "A closed mouth gathers no feet" >>>

	Blessings to you and yours, Mary Jo.
	
>>    And what if this woman was/is gifted to be a teacher by God? (Or 
>>    prophets like Phillip's daughters?)

        From the contents of basenote that originated this discussion, this
        is extremely unlikely. 

        Prophetess is not a position of authority over men in the assembly. 
    
>>    And if women were never to teach men under any circumstances, why 
>>    didn't Jesus tell the woman at the well to go back and get her husbands
>>    so he could talk to them so they could go back to the village to spread
>>    the word that the Messiah had indeed come?

        Did they sit their husbands down and expound unto them the
        doctrines of Christ?  Didn't Jesus just tell them to bring their
        husbands to Him?  Could it be that He, Jesus, would do the
        doctrinal teaching of the men and not the wives?
    
        Incidentally, nowhere did the scripture indicate that "women were
        never to teach men under any circumstances", but only in the
        assembly of the saints or in the context of usurping authority over
        the men. 

        Again, dear sister, allow God to search you out on this one.  What
        I say means nothing.  Read the plain meaning of the Scripture,
        without searching for "contradictory" passages.  Whenever we find 
        contradictions in scripture, they are most likely the result of
	wishful thinking, imposing human reasoning on God's Word, or just
	plain misunderstanding.

	Peace and grace to you.
		TonyC
	

    Greeting dear friends,
    
    You sure are kicking this subject to death again.
    
    Some conveniently forget our dear sister Miriam, one of the first
    prophets identified in the Hebrew scriptures, and our dear sister Junias,
    and Priscilla from the Christian scriptures.
    
    

>our dear sister Junias,

Junias was a man.

/john

    and pray tell me dear John, how you know that Junias was a man!

RE: <<< Note 363.128 by CPCOD::JOHNSON "A rare blue and gold afternoon" >>>

>>  -< What is teaching? How does it differ from Prophecy? >-

	Hello, sister Leslie.

        Prophecy is expounding the word of the Lord, be it from Scripture
        or from insight and revelation.  One does not need to occupy the
        office of pastor or assoc. pastor (elder) to exercise this gift.
        "Thus saith the Lord ..." bears with it an authority apart from the
        speaker thereof.  The office of bishop, pastor, or elder, on the
        other hand, provides an hierarchical, organisational authority over
        the men (families) of the church.  I am unaware of any scripture
        where a woman was commanded by God to teach or exercise spiritual
        leadership authority over the men in the temple or synagog. A
        deacon(ess) is a servant under one of the elders in a ministry,
        like choirmember, groundskeeper, secretary, treasurer, etc.  

        The prophet(ess)'s job is to exhort, provoke to good works, warn,
        and admonish. This is not something that makes for a good marriage
        if the wife is the prophetess in the family and the husband is not.
        ;-)

        I would listen to a testimony or prophecy from a woman in the
        assembly, but I could not attend in good conscience a church with a
        woman bishop, pastor or elder.

	Again, what I say or think is absolutely meaningless.  The only
	thing that matters is what God thinks.  Please examine carefully
	the roles of men and women in God's Word and what happens to those
	who adhere to God's plan and what happens to those who reject it.
	
	God's peace to you,
		TonyC
		

>    and pray tell me dear John, how you know that Junias was a man!

Because the word appears in the masculine dative case.

English loses that particular clue, but it's there in other languages.

/john

I'm afraid that -GASP- I have to side with Patricia here. :-)

Junias is a woman's name.  We don't know anything else about this person, but
unless Junias was a 'boy named Sue,' Junias was a woman, and is named among
-GASP AGAIN- the apostles:

"Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. 
They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I
was."
							Rom 16:7

The aversion to this possibly being a woman was such that in the King James
translation, the greek "Junias" was changed in the translation to the male
form "Junia."

But "Junias" is the way it is in the Word.  I wouldn't wind up being with
Patricia in a lot of the place she would likely go with this, because I also
recognize the other passages that do make a distinction between men and
women, but the Word *DOES* indicate the existence of a female in an apostolic
office.

As the pastor at a church where I sometimes attend renewal meetings often
says when confronting people with an unpopular truth from the Word:

"Deal with it."

Paul

    .136
    
    >But "Junias" is the way it is in the Word. 
    
    What Word?
    

What makes you think "Junias" is a woman's name?

Is "Hilary" a woman's name?

/john

    >>But "Junias" is the way it is in the Word. 
    >
    >What Word?

The original greek.

I'm only about 99% sure that "Junias" is feminine in the Greek.  I'll try to
look this up tonight in some other reference works.  I do have Strong's
Concordance here at work on Logos which defines "Junias" as a feminine name,
and I've checked that both the NIV and NAS translate it as "Junias" but the
King James translates it as "Junia."

Paul

RE: <<< Note 363.136 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

	Hey, brother!

        Indeed, the Strongs in my OnLine Bible lists the AV Junia as a
        transliteration of the Greek "Iounias", which is the feminine
        gender.  Perhaps the AV translators could not reconcile a woman
        being a fellowprisoner with men.  However, I disagree that this
        person held the office of apostle, as being "of note among the
        apostles" is not the same as being "counted among the apostles". 
        This is more likely to mean that (s)he was given special
        recognition by the apostles, not that (s)he held a position of
        authority.  Jesus, though he had women in service and homage to
	Him, never referred to any of them as His apostles, even though
	some of the women around Him were smarter and braver than the men
	He called apostles. 

	God's peace to you, dear brother.

		TonyC

    Well, it certainly appears to be somewhat of an ambiguous text standing
    alone, however, when taken precept upon precept, it is doubtful that
    Junias was an apostle but rather held in high regard among the
    apostles.

    and scholars throughout the ages have been dealing with Junias exactly
    as is being dealt here.  Some so blinded against the possibility that
    Junias, amongst the apostles could be a women, that they altered the
    translation as is shown in the KJV.  And then we can quibble whether
    amonst the apostles means an apostles.  And some can even say that they
    infallibly know that Junias could not be a woman and an apostles.
    
    God has chosen to reveal his word to us dimly!  As in a mirror! 
    Probably as a warning for us not to be too smug in what we "know" to be
    truth.

RE:   <<< Note 363.140 by STAR::CAMUSO "alphabits" >>>

>>        Jesus, though he had women in service and homage to
>>	Him, never referred to any of them as His apostles, even though
>>	some of the women around Him were smarter and braver than the men
>>	He called apostles. 

	I think I know why that is.  ;-)

	1st Corinthians 1:27
	  But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound
	  the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to
	  confound the things that are mighty.
	  

True point, Tony.  That's possible.  I'm not a greek scholar, so I can't
really say.  But from what I can get from Strongs:

The word "Notable" or "of note" is not used much in the New Testament, only
twice in fact.  The other place is Mt 27:16, which uses the word to refer to
Barabbas as a "Notorious prisoner."  Not much help there; as you say, the
people referred to could be 'notorious' *to* the apostles.

The word translated as 'among,' according to Strong's, means:

"A primary preposition denoting [fixed] position [in place, time, or state]
and [by implication] instrumentality [medially or constructively] i.e. a
relation of rest."

A bit confusing toward the end there, but it does convey more of a sense of
"in" as in 'part of' than "to" as in 'known to.'  Most of the time this word
is translate as "in."

I guess what I'm saying is that this sentence construction, as it stands and
without modification of translation by other issues, would indicate that the
woman Junias was notable as one in apostolic office.

There are two classes of other issues that might modify that.  One is
personal preconceived notions, which are of course to be dismissed as best as
we can.  The second are by other portions of the Word, which is how we come
to understanding.

I understand a way of looking at this passage that uses other passages in the
Word to interpret this one to minimize the indication here of feminine
authority, either by claiming that Junias was a man or by claiming that
Junias the woman was only notable *to* the apostles.

In the same way, this passage of the Word can be used to soften the passages
that limit women's authority in the church.

Paul

RE: <<< Note 363.142 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

	Scholars-schmolars.  It's not important what they or any of us
	think.  What does the Holy Spirit of God say?  His testimony can be
	found in the rest of scripture and in heartfelt, broken-willed
	prayer before YHWH in the name of Yahshua.  Few of us do this ever,
	unless our world is collapsing around us, and then only for comfort
	and solace, not for knowledge and wisdom.  Seek Him and His
	guidance.  All the Greek scholars in the world won't illuminate
	this one whit.

	God's peace to you, Patricia.

		TonyC

    It's pretty serious when people erroneously use the word of God to deny
    priesthood and ministry to women and then refuse to take serious a
    study of this passage because they have already determined what
    God wants or doesn't want for us.  Miriam, junias, and priscilla are
    three very relevent and very real instances of women as priestess,
    prophet, and apostle.

    re:  363.145
    
    Okay Tony. 
    
    I have watched your notes here regarding this subject.  
    
    Your position about women in the church is very clear.  
    
    I do not know if you intend your tone to be condescending or not.  When 
    I read what you write, my perception that the tone is condescending.  Or 
    in a tone that indicates you feel your study and interpretation of the 
    scriptures is more accurate than the study others have done (which may 
    also be in 'spirit and in truth').
    
    I pray that my perceptions are inaccurate.
    
    I absolutely believe in prayer and testing the scriptures.  The Spirit
    has revealed a great deal to me in study and in prayer.  But I don't
    see prayer and testing the scriptures means that we ignore the original
    text and the resources available to us to make sure what we are reading
    is read accurately and with the appropriate inflection.  I have yet 
    to find a scripture that says -- OK all you folks born after the KJV,
    you can't look at the Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic anymore.  I don't
    know, maybe it is buried somewhere in Obadiah.   ;-}   (Probably in 
    the same place that says that you can't sing or play any Christian 
    music that was written after 1952...)  ;-)
    
    I don't know exactly what is the correct way to interpret these 
    scriptures in question.   I know how I interpret them (after prayer, 
    fasting, studying etc.)  And I suspect none of us will know until 
    the Lord comes (or later).  
    
    In the meantime, I perceive ole' Satan is having a grand time making 
    sure this subject is kept stirred up.  It keeps millions of women from
    embracing the Word of God because of the apparent 'sexist' stance. 
    (This all kept me away from the Lord for most of my life.)  It
    keeps 65% of all Christians from being used to teach (65% of all 
    Christians are female).  (Has anyone noticed that some churches who
    don't allow women in authority roles will send those same women
    overseas to be missionaries?)
    
    Mary Jo 
    

RE:    <<< Note 363.147 by CSC32::HOEPNER "A closed mouth gathers no feet" >>>

        Please forgive me if my tone is condescending.  I don't mean to
        come across that way.  I know how aggravating that can be.  I do
        detect, however, a tone of ridicule in your and especially
        Patrica's notes.  Let's just stick to the facts and eschew the
	contemporary predisposition towards rhetoric of the dialectic and
	other hyperbolic rubbish.

        Please provide evidence, that is studied sources, diaries and
        writings of the AV translators, etc, and not speculation, that the
        AV translators deliberately altered the scriptures to deny women
        apostleship, and that Junias was indeed an apostle and exercised
	leadership authority over the church(es).
	
        Scripture written by the same Paul forbids the female to usurp the
        authority over the man.  Jesus called his male disciples apostles.
        He never referred to any of his female disciples as apostles. 
        Unless I missed something, there was never a priestess in any of
        the temple services of YHWH.  The preponderance of scripture, line
        upon line, precept upon precept, weighs heavily against female
        leadership authority in the church.

	Again I say, what I think, or what messrs. Westcott and Hort think,
	or whatever anyone else thinks is meaningless.  Let the Holy Ghost
	of God and the fruits of the paths we choose as pilgrims speak for
	themselves.

	God's peace to you,

		TonyC

    Romans 16:7 - various English language translations:
    
    (Youngs Literal)
    salute Andronicus and Junias, my kindred, and my fellow-captives, who
    are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.
    
    (AV - KJV)
    Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who
    are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
    
    (RSV)
    Greet Androni'cus and Ju'nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they
    are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.
    
    (NASV)
    Greet Andronicus and [1]Junias, my *kinsmen and my *fellow prisoners,
    who are outstanding among the apostles, who also [2]were *in Christ
    before me.
    
    [1]Or Junia (fem)
    [2]Lit have become
    
    (NIV)
    Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with
    me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ
    before I was.
    
    (Darby)
    Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow-captives, who are
    of note among the apostles; who were also in Christ before me.

    RE: .146
    
    Hi, Patricia.
    
    We've not met, so knowing each other's heart would be difficult just
    from what we write.  But, I would ask that you take my motives in
    stating observations and asking questions to be pure, i.e., done NOT to
    make a rhetorical point, rather to gain understanding.
    
    You listed Miriam, Junias and Priscilla as examples of women as
    priestess, prophet and apostle.  Did you mean respectively?  Miriam was
    a prophetess (Ex 15:20) and a debate centers on Junias being an apostle
    (Ro 16:7).  That leaves Priscilla as a priestess.  Where in Scripture
    is Priscilla or any other woman called a priest(ess)?
    
    In my study of these issues, I've observed the following:  More often
    than not in the N.T. where women are explicitly identified as ministers
    of (or helpers in) the gospel, they are listed with their husbands. 
    Even in the O.T. where a female prophet or judge is identified there is
    reference to their husband.  One notable exception, of course, is Miriam,
    but she seems clearly identified as the sister of Moses and Aaron with
    whom she prophesied.
    
    There is nothing to indicate that Andronicus and Junias (assuming the
    feminine) were husband and wife, but they were clearly identified
    together.  As for Priscilla and Aquila, they were married and clearly
    ministered as a team (see Ac 18:26)--there is little doubt that
    Priscilla did, in fact, "expound unto <Apollos> the way of God more
    perfectly."
    
    Another notable exception is Anna, a prophetess (Lu 2:36) identified as
    the daughter of Phanuel and as an 84-year old widow who had been
    married for seven years before her husband died.  The Scripture
    implies that Anna had "departed not from the temple, but served God
    with fastings and prayers night and day" from the day her husband died.
    Moreover, the context includes Simeon, a man who "was just and devout,
    waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon
    him." (Lu 2:25)  Simeon and Anna together in the same temple prophesied
    concerning the child Jesus.
    
    Men, on the other hand, often are identified as ministers without
    reference to women.  One notable exception, of course, was Timothy whose
    "unfeigned faith...dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother
    Eunice." (2Tim 1:5)  Paul regarded himself as Timothy's spiritual
    father, though, responsible for Timothy's instruction.
    
    Anyway, do you think my observation might be significant?  Why or why
    not?
    
    /Wayne

    WAyne,
    
    You do have some great information in your note.  You have added some
    additional examples of women prophets and I thank you for that.
    
    My use of the term prophet, priestess, and Apostle was in no particular
    order.  Some commentaries identify Miriam as a priestess and not a
    prophetess.   These point out that the term prophet as we understand it
    really began with the Prophets identified in the historic books.  i.e
    Elijah, Elisha, Nathan, etc.  Miriam lead the women in ritualistic
    dancing.  That has been interpreted as the role of a priestess.  I
    believe that Deborah did the same but I am not as confident in that.
    
    It is interesting that often prophetess are mentioned with their
    husband.  However Paul identifies Priscilla first and her husband
    second, recognizing the priority of Priscilla over her husband in that
    aspect of the mission.
    
    What is amazing in the Bible, given the time and culture in which it
    was written is not that there are so few women as leaders mentioned but
    that there are amble examples of women as leaders mentioned in a number
    of different roles.  It is truly one of God's miracles that these
    tidbits of woman's role in early Israel and in the Christian era have
    not been lost given that all the chronocler were men.
    
    Why would someone argue that because Jesus never specifically told
    women to serve as priests and disciples that he intended that they
    never do?  Why argue from silience on that matter.  Jesus no where say
    that women should not act as priest and disciples.
    
    Again, society in the time of Jesus was so segregated between women and
    men that again what is amazing is that Jesus broke many of the social
    rules of the day with his acceptance, communication with, and
    instruction with women.  This was revolutionary for the time.  You all
    know the stories.  Mary and Martha, The woman at the well, the syro
    phoenician woman.  The disciples lived a nomadic life style wandering
    and sleeping where they could.  Culturally it would have been
    impossible for women to play the role that the male disciples played. 
    Today it is no longer culturally taboo.
    
    Jesus was at the forefront of the culture in his treatment of women. 
    Women could play a greater role in Christianity than in the economics
    or politics of the day.
    
    Why today when women are allowed into all economic and political
    positions should they be limited in the role they can play in the
    church.  That is the exact opposit of the role that Jesus played in his
    acceptance and treatment of women.
    
    Excluding women from any position is unfair and wrong.  It is even
    unbiblical.

    Patricia,
    
    I do not argue from the point of silence.  I stand firm on what I wrote
    a year ago regarding this topic.  I'll post it again here as it flows
    nicely in response to your note.
    
           <<< YUKON::DISK$ARCHIVE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;2 >>>
                          -< The CHRISTIAN Notesfile >-
================================================================================
Note 363.2                  Women Speaking In Church                    2 of 151
JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"    26 lines   6-JAN-1994 19:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I know there are many who believe that this scripture is not applicable
    to all churches and there are some of you who have female Pastors. 
    Right up front please let me say that I'm not intending to hurt any
    of you, I love you and this is one of those things that I wouldn't for
    the life of me purposely offend you. 
    
    On the other hand, for the sake of the discussion, I need to voice my
    conviction that women are not to be Pastors.  In Timothy when Paul
    talks about the roles of the leaders in the church, he says for the
    deacons, bishops [pastors] to be husbands of one wife.  Women do not
    have wives.  No where in the scripture does it note female Pastors. 
    However, I do believe that women can be teachers, but I don't think
    women should teach men on spiritual matters.   That doesn't mean that a
    man cannot learn from a woman, what it does mean is that Spiritual
    leadership is the man's role as defined in the marriage relationship
    and in the church.
    
    Why would God have the family different then the church?  How confusing
    for a family who's Mother is the church's spiritual leader and the
    father is submissive to her in the church role... doesn't this seem
    really questionable?   Where is the headship... does Pastor Jane become
    submissive to the spiritual authority of her husband?  Think about
    human behavior...it would be very difficult. 
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    

As I said in an earlier note, though I agree with you, Patricia, that the
Word does portray women in positions of leadership, I don't agree with where
you go with it, for a very fundamental reason which we've mentioned before.

I accept and understand those passages because they are there.  I'm not
willing to explain them away.  But I also recognize that other passages,
which delineate different roles for men and women, are also there.  I'm not
willing to explain those away either.  I am seeking to find out what the Word
actually says and adhere to it.

Your approach is totally different, on this topic as on previous topics.  You
come to your own conclusion about the truth of the matter - in this case that
there are no different roles for men and women - completely apart from what
the Word says.  Then you seek some passages which support what you believe,
completely ignore (as in, consistently refuse to even reference) passages
which say anything different, and then proclaim your position as 'Biblical.'

Please understand that I am not attacking you personally, but I will continue
to stand against the form of Biblical 'scholarship' which you consistently
use.  If you want to proclaim a position which limits women's roles as
'unbiblical,' then you're going to have to deal with the passages which do
speak of different roles.

Paul

>    Why would someone argue that because Jesus never specifically told
>    women to serve as priests and disciples that he intended that they
>    never do?

Did anyone here do that?  I missed it.  I agree that this specific arguement
would be an argument from silence.  But note that Jesus' words aren't the
only portion of Scripture that is considered the Word of God, all of it is,
and the Word isn't silent on this matter.  So no one's arguing from silence.

>Jesus no where say
>    that women should not act as priest and disciples.

To use this as an argument in favor of women in priestly roles IS an argument
from silence.  We can't say that Jesus never said that, we can only say that
it was never recorded.  He may very well have said it.

If you want to argue from silence about this one, the fact that Jesus is NOT
recorded as proclaiming that women should be priests is significant.  Because
of the way that the gospels were written, the things that were most likely to
be recorded were the things which Jesus said which were shocking or memorable
or departures from the established norms.  You're correct in saying that
Jesus DID do things, which were recorded, which broke new ground in the role
of women.  But if He had ever spoken right out and said that women should be
priests, it would have shocked every hearer, and would almost surely have
been remembered (and brought to mind by the Holy Spirit, if it was supposed
to be in the Word).

I'm not willing to argue from silence about Jesus never saying anything about
this, but if you DO want to argue from silence, silence is always on the side
of that which is already established.  Even if you take out the inspiriation
of the Holy Spirit (which I don't, but I know you do), silence on a shocking
new development which Jesus taught is *extremely* unlikely.

Paul

	Here is an interesting twist to it all. You have denominations that
allow women in leadership roles. You have a biggie that says no. Both are using
the same book for their reasoning, yet two seperate results. What parts of the
Bible do people feel are being used to back both claims? And to further that,
the ones that overlap, how is either side coming to their conclusions? POSSIBLY
by discussing this, not in a who's write or wrong manner, but as an
understanding one, both sides of the coin can understand the other better. I
think it is safe to say that either side isn't going to change the others mind.
But maybe a better understanding.


Glen

>You have denominations that allow women in leadership roles. You have a
>biggie that says no.

The biggie allows women in leadership roles -- even puts them in charge
of parishes when priests are not available.

It doesn't allow them to be ordained to the apostolic orders, but it does
allow them to exercise leadership roles, and it values their contributions
to the Church as workers prominent among the successors of the apostles.

/john

<----- John, the word game? Come on.....

    In accordance with the conference guidelines, please supply BCV where
    it says women can be pastors.
    
    Women can hold many position in the church including very vital roles
    such as teacher, prophetess, and deaconess.  The pastoralship isn't one of
    them, however.
    
    Was there ever a female Jewish High Priest?
    How about a female Levitical Priest?
    How about 1 of the 12 appointed by Christ to start the growth of the church?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

	Mike, does that mean any denomination where a woman is appointed as
pastor, even when there are men to fill the position, isn't following the
Bible?


Glen

Hi, Patricia.

Your reply helped me better understand your position.  My sense is that you're
not really interested in dialog, so I'll refrain from further discussion in
terms of sharing my own views.  I'm not sure commenting on your opinions would
be constructive/beneficial because our exegetical methodologies regarding
Scripture seem quite different.

|   My use of the term prophet, priestess, and Apostle was in no particular
|   order.  Some commentaries identify Miriam as a priestess and not a
|   prophetess.   These point out that the term prophet as we understand it
|   really began with the Prophets identified in the historic books.  i.e
|   Elijah, Elisha, Nathan, etc.  Miriam lead the women in ritualistic
|   dancing.  That has been interpreted as the role of a priestess.  I
|   believe that Deborah did the same but I am not as confident in that.

** Deborah was identified as a prophetess who served as a judge in Israel
   (Jud 4:4).  In my mind, commentaries identifying Miriam as a priestess is
   not the same as Scripture calling her a priest(ess).  I'm not aware of
   Scripture anywhere identifying a woman as a priest(ess).  That seems
   significant to me.
    
|   It is interesting that often prophetess are mentioned with their
|   husband.  However Paul identifies Priscilla first and her husband
|   second, recognizing the priority of Priscilla over her husband in that
|   aspect of the mission.

** Where is that?  Are you referring to Ac 18:18 or Ro 16:3?  How about
   Ac 18:26, or 1Co 16:19 wherein Paul greets the church for Aquila and
   Priscilla in that order?  What about Ac 18:2 wherein Aquila and his wife
   Priscilla are introduced in that order?

   I'd never thought to infer priority of one person over another from the
   order of their names in a list, i.e., I would not say that Aquila was
   more important than Priscilla because his name preceded hers in three of
   the five verses refering to them.
    
|   What is amazing in the Bible, given the time and culture in which it
|   was written is not that there are so few women as leaders mentioned but
|   that there are amble examples of women as leaders mentioned in a number
|   of different roles.  It is truly one of God's miracles that these
|   tidbits of woman's role in early Israel and in the Christian era have
|   not been lost given that all the chronocler were men.

** Are you suggesting that the chroniclers might have been biased against
   women?

   /Wayne

>	Mike, does that mean any denomination where a woman is appointed as
>pastor, even when there are men to fill the position, isn't following the
>Bible?


 What does the Bible say Glen?  Go read it, then get back to us.




 Jim

| <<< Note 363.161 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend, will you be ready?" >>>



| What does the Bible say Glen?  Go read it, then get back to us.


	Jim, it's this kind of stuff that I am talking about. It's called zero
dialogue. You have two groups who are following the same book. There are two
different interpretations of who can head up a ministry. What I am trying to
find out is if one is false, and the other isn't. Plain and simple. 


Glen

    Glen,
    
    The truth is that every person that uses Timothy and Titus as a reason
    for not ordaining women should also use Timothy and Titus for not
    allowing women to speak  in church.  It does say women should be
    silent.  It also says women should not teach men.  That means no mixed
    sex adult ed classes should be taught by women.  No reading should be
    done by women.
    
    I guess it also becomes important to understand at what age the bible
    suggests boys become men, because after that age the mother should stop
    teaching the son as well.  Mothers homeschooling male high school
    students would be a definite no no!
    
    That is unless of course Timothy and Titus are to be applied only to
    those instances in which it is convenient to apply Timothy and Titus.

>| What does the Bible say Glen?  Go read it, then get back to us.


>	Jim, it's this kind of stuff that I am talking about. It's called zero
>dialogue. You have two groups who are following the same book. There are two
>ifferent interpretations of who can head up a ministry. What I am trying to
>find out is if one is false, and the other isn't. Plain and simple. 



 Fine.  Go read the Bible, see what it says about the issue and then we can
 engage in dialogue.




 Jim

	Wow, Jim.... who would have thought..... I asked Mike what he thought.
Is that hard to picture for you?

	Patricia, I guess you shouldn't be speaking in here. Some male might
learn something! :-) :-)


Glen

    I said this in soapbox but I guess its time to say it in here:
    
    I believe in struggle and conflict is inevitable.  But I also believe
    that struggle and conflict reveal the character in a person.  What is
    being revealed about you in your dialogues?
    
    

    Patricia, you're still taking the "women be silent" thing out of
    context.

>	Wow, Jim.... who would have thought..... I asked Mike what he thought.
>Is that hard to picture for you?


 Oh..sorry, Glen.




 Jim

    That's okay, Jim.  You and I agree on many things and you spoke well on
    my behalf.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 363.167 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| I believe in struggle and conflict is inevitable.  But I also believe
| that struggle and conflict reveal the character in a person.  What is
| being revealed about you in your dialogues?

	Nancy, who is this being directed at?

    	I don't see why it matters who specifically it addresses (if 
    	it is even specific at all.)  
    
    	We should all take it to heart.

    Glen,
    
    I'm confused why you are asking this question?  I don't think I could
    have worded it more clearly than I did.

    Thank you Joe.

    Nancy,
    
    I'm assuming that you are only speaking to the women in here (-;)
    
    

| <<< Note 363.173 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| I'm confused why you are asking this question?  I don't think I could
| have worded it more clearly than I did.

	There was no name attached, and I didn't want to assume who it was
directed at. So if you mention the person's name, it would clear that part of
it up.


Glen

    It was directed at everyone... with 3 fingers and thumb pointed back at
    me... Sheesh Glen! 

| <<< Note 363.177 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| It was directed at everyone... with 3 fingers and thumb pointed back at
| me... Sheesh Glen!

	What with this sheesh Glen stuff? Would it have been better for me to
just jump all over you back because I thought it was only directed at one or
two people, or was the better approach be the one I used, to ask you who it was
directed at? I would think the latter, as if you had just stated that without
the sheesh Glen stuff, all you would have gotten out of me was a thanks for
clarifying.


Glen

    Glen,
    
    Have you ever seen a dog with fleas?  Ever watch them scratch but
    satisfaction is of no avail to them?  That's what communicating with
    you feels like most of the time to me.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    

I regret that I don't have the time to participate in this discussion, as I
did in earlier replies to this basenote in early 1994, or even read all the
recent contributions posted here of late.

I would like to post my position statement that I wrote in late 1994.  I
don't know that I have the time at present to continue to defend it online,
so I hope that other like-minded individuals will do so in my stead.

The following reply is 211 lines long.


									1 of 4
		Women and Authority - (Garth Wiebe, November 1994)
		--------------------------------------------------

It is written,

	Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
	the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God... For man
	did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created 
	for woman, but woman for man.  For this reason, and because of the 
	angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. 
	(1 Cor 11:3,8-10)

	A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.  I do not permit
	a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
	For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not the one 
	deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
	But she will be restored through childbearing -- if they continue
	in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Tim 2:11-15)

	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.  (1 Cor 14:33-35)

The apostle Paul does not explain any of these in terms of the social
or historical setting of the church, or in terms of pagan influences, but
instead explains them in terms of the creation and the fall.  Let us review
these two areas:  Creation, and the fall.

In the creation, man was created first, and woman was created from man and for
man.  This account is given in Genesis 2:18-23 and is referred to in the 1 Cor
11 and 1 Tim 2 passages as a basis for the teachings given in those passages.

In the fall, the woman was deceived and caused the man to sin against the
Lord's command.  This account is given in Genesis 3:1-13 and is also referred
to in the 1 Tim 2 passage as the basis for the teaching given in that passage. 

Finally, as a consequence of the fall, God pronounces the decree "Your desire
will be for your husband and he shall rule over you."  (Genesis 3:16)  This
is the basis for the final statement in the 1 Tim 2 passage and the 1 Cor 14
passage.

Regarding the curse of the fall, "...he shall rule over you", some argue that
this is not the way God originally intended things to be, and so reason that
we should somehow strive to overcome this curse, as if God is hoping that we
will keep his decree from being implemented.  This is fallacious thinking.

Indeed, it was God's ideal that the Israelites walk right out of Egypt and
take possession of the promised land.  But they wandered 40 years in the
desert instead.  Why?  Because God decreed that curse upon them as a result
of their response to the report by the spies who spied out the promised land.
Take heed of what happened to the group of vigilantes who "repented" the very
next day and went out to take the land anyway.  They failed, because the Lord
was not with them.  (See Numbers 13-14.)  When God pronounces judgment, he
means it. 

A new theory proposed by some is that the women cited in the 1 Tim 2 passage
were ignorant, as Eve was ignorant, and that the "restoration" of 1 Tim 2 is
through learning.  But the proposition that Eve was ignorant has no basis in
scripture, and so is speculation.  This also only addresses the fall, and fails
to address the order and purpose of the creation of Adam and Eve.

									2 of 4

Having given an adequate defense for excluding women from positions of
authority in the church, let's summarize the rebuttals to some allegedly
scriptural objections to it. 

>> "Priscilla was mentioned first, was leader of two, taught Apollos...": 
Three falsehoods.  Aquilla was mentioned first along with Priscilla in 1 Cor
16:19 and in Acts 18:2, and Priscilla was mentioned first in the remainder of
Acts 18, in Rom 16, and in 2 Tim 4.  "Priscilla AND Aquilla" taught Apollos
(Acts 18:26).  Even if Priscilla was always mentioned first, this would be 
irrelevant.  There is no scriptural precedent for suggesting that the order of 
mention has any significance.  In fact, of "faith, hope, and love", "the
greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13).  In any case, nowhere in the
scriptures is it said or implied that she was the leader of the two, or even a
leader, period.  In fact, we can assume that Aquilla was the leader of the two,
because they were husband and wife, and wives are called to submit to their 
husbands. 

>>"Junia was a woman apostle":  It is not clear whether Junia/s was a woman or
a man.  The scriptures do not say.  Historians debate it.  Therefore, this
cannot be used as a proof-text.  Nowhere in the scriptures is it said that
Junia/s was in a position of authority in the church.  What does "notable among
the apostles mean"?  Notable because s/he is an apostle, or one whom the
apostles consider notable?  Also, apostle may be "one who is sent", or one who
has "seen the Lord", etc.  S/he certainly wasn't one of the Twelve, or
described as a leader. 

>>"Phoebe was a deacon.":  Phoebe was a <diakonos>.  <Diakonos>, transliterated
"deacon", means "servant".  Neither the title nor the role carries any
intrinsic position of authority.  That many contemporary churches install
"deacons" in positions of authority is irrelevant, and superfluous to the fact
that, scripturally, <diakonos> means "servant". 

>>"The 'elect lady' of John's epistle was probably an elder.":  There is no
basis for supposing that the apostle John's "elect lady" was an elder or a
woman in authority.  The scriptures don't teach that she was, and mere
speculation does not bear weight in support of that position.  To say that you
don't know whether the appropriate rendering is "woman elder" or "elder woman"
does nothing to support the concept of women in authority unless you have some
way of knowing which rendering is correct. 

>>"Adam AND Eve were given dominion over the earth":  That "Adam and Eve" were
given dominion over the earth says nothing about the position of Adam and Eve
with respect to each other. 

>>"There were woman prophets.":  Prophets utter the word of God.  The authority
is in the word of God that is spoken or written, and not the prophet himself or
herself, because a prophet does not speak on his/her own accord.  If a woman is
a prophet, this does not give her authority over any man.  She is simply
repeating what God says.  Therefore, the existence of the female prophets and
the prophecy of Joel quoted in Acts 2 do not support the position of women in
authority. 

>>"1 Cor 11 cites women prophesying in church.  How, then, can they be silent":
1 Cor 11 explains that the head of the woman is man.  And the issue we are
dealing with is authority and propriety.  The women can deliver their 
prophecies to their husbands/fathers/elders/pastors, who can both test the
prophecy and deliver it publically to the church, reconcilling 1 Cor 11 with
1 Cor 14.

									3 of 4

>>"Sarah, Esther, Ruth, Huldah, Isaiah's wife, and Lydia were prominent
women.":  There is no mention of these women being in positions of authority. 
The fact that they were "prominent" in the scriptures does not intrinsically
give them authority. 

>>"Deborah judged/led Israel":  Deborah was a prophet, and being one does not
intrinsically grant her authority.  The fact that Deborah judged/led Israel is
not an endorsement of a woman's having authority.  The job description for the
judges is given as follows: "Then the Lord raised up judges/leaders who saved
them out the the hands of these raiders.  Yet they would not listen to their
judges...  Whenever the Lord raised up a judge for them, he was with the judge
and saved them out of the hands of their enemies as long as the judge lived..."
(Judges 2:16-18) 

Deborah is introduced as "Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was
leading/judging Israel at that time."  An introduction such as this cannot even
be construed as an endorsement of the concept of a woman leading Israel, since
the statement was merely that she "was" leading/judging for whatever reason or
circumstance. 

The verses following Deborah's introduction describe how the Israelites came to
her to have their disputes decided, which a prophet could do by simply
inquiring of the Lord to have the Lord decree the matter. 

It is worth noting that Deborah sent for Barak based on the prophecy and
command of the Lord, not her own.  The scriptures do not give evidence of
Deborah exercising authority over Barak.

Deborah responded to Barak's request for her to accompany him as follows:
"'Very well', Deborah said, 'I will go with you.  But because of the way you
are going about this, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will hand
Sisera over to a woman.'" (Judges 4:9).  Note that Sisera is to be handed over
to "a woman" as a result of Barak's bad attitude.  Note also that Deborah
prophesied against Barak, but obeyed him nonetheless. 

From the above, it can be seen that Deborah is likewise a poor example to
support the doctrine of equality of women with regard to authority. 

>>"Women can be witnesses of the gospel":  Being a "witness" does not
intrinsically give a woman authority over a man.  Being a "minister of the
gospel" does not intrinsically give a woman authority over a man.  Being a
missionary or having a prominent or fruitful ministry does not give a woman
authority over a man. 

>>"There is no 'Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female'":  Gal 3:28
addresses our faith, salvation, and membership in the body of Christ, and has
nothing to do with the issue of authority. 

Based on the above rebuttals, it can be seen that no scriptural precedent is 
demonstrated for placing women in positions of authority over men. 

									4 of 4

There are some non-scriptural arguments, but they all take a back seat to
the revelation of scriptures, which is the word of God.  A few worth 
mentioning:

>>"Celsus was a critic of the first century church, claiming that christianity
was invalidated by the fact that women were in authority.":  It isn't wise to
rely on the testimony of a non-christian, an opposer of the faith.  Such people
are responsible for all sorts of slander and distortions of the truth, even
today.

>>"What if a woman feels that she is called of God to a position of
authority?":  God doesn't contradict what he has already said.  New revelation
has to be tested in light of established revelation. 

>>"Scripture needs to be interpretted in light of its historical context.":
Then where are the historical documents associated with Genesis or Revelation?
If we can't understand what scripture says without knowing the historical 
context, then there are quite a few scriptures that we must declare unknowable.
Furthermore, if the scriptures in question only apply to the first century
church, then what are they doing in the cannon of scripture?  Are they not made
out to be stumbling blocks, not useful in teaching, rebuking, correcting or
training in righteousness, in contrast to what 2 Tim 3:16 says?  

The circumstances in which the first century church lived may have been a
catalyst to bring out the problems mentioned, and it is always interesting to
study the historical context, but the principles taught are not taught as 
being a phenomenon of the day.  It would be easy for the writer of scripture to 
explain the problems in terms of the historical setting of the first century 
church.  Instead, the writer of scripture explains them as being a consequence
of creation and the fall, citing the historical context of the first chapters
of Genesis. 

| <<< Note 363.179 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Have you ever seen a dog with fleas?  

	Nope, just cats.

| Ever watch them scratch but satisfaction is of no avail to them?  

	For the cats, yes.

| That's what communicating with you feels like most of the time to me.

	Well there is a simple explaination for that. You assume way too much.
You try to read things into what I write. If you just communicated, and didn't
do these things, it would be much easier for you. And your fleas would leave
too. :-)


Glen

    Thanks Glen.