Saul was selected by God as King of Israel. Samuel led Israel in worship b/4 God. When Saul and the Israelites were about to be over run by enemy soldiers and Samuel failed to show up like he should, Saul acted to save the people of Israel. He had very good intentions and desired to please God. But in doing that, he assumed a role that was not allowed to in the worship of God.
As Samuel latter showed him his good intentions did not count. What counted was that in trying to assume a position which he was not allowed, he disobeyed and disrespected that divinely ordained arraignment. It was not a case of anybody could take the lead as long as we are worshiping God. Only a designated person by God could take that lead for that worship to be acceptable to God. (Similar to what people say today that it does not matter who, as long as it is God they are trying to worship)
For that act God took away rulership from him and his linage and he lost God’s approval

Miriam was a prophetess and a Levite woman who led fellow women in worship of God. At a point, she wanted to do more than that and assume a role which in God’s arraignment she was not allowed to do. She became discontent with her position in pure worship and started to desire a role that she could not have.
She never intended to disrespect God. But by refusing to stick to her place in His arraignment, she did just that and God dealt a sever blow to her.

Atahliah was a woman who overstepped her place in Gods arraignment and felt she could assume a position which women were not allowed to. God executed her for that.

These are examples I remember for now. All over the bible examples of people who have tried to alter the arraignment for worship of God and How God executed them. Taking the lead in worship was and still not is something the Almighty jokes with. (Some of God’s decisions might look unjust from a human standpoint eg with King David and Uzzah, but divine justice is principled)

Humans are not in a position to rethink or reassess who can take the lead in worship


Im on my break time and I just took out as lil time to post a few of these. If I remember more il post them

Il come back and state my reason for citing these examples tough.


@Thief throughout history, when it comes to leading in the worship of God, its not really been a male/female issue though[b] in the Christian congregation only men can preside, oversee, shephard and be elders to the flock [/b] and il explain why

TV01,

TV01:

Can women take overall lead of the flock? The thread is titled "Can you attend a church led by a woman?" Presumably that would be a yes or a no and why not.

Let me go over this again with you:

a) I have stated sometime earlier that this topic is not as simplistic as many people try to make it sound (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.128.html#msg1256056).

b) when I saw the refined poser of the thread originator ("the spiritual authority of a female leader?", I have offered my arguments in view of that same context: what roles do women play in Church?

c) even so, my answers to your question here are these:

  i) no one (men or women) can take overall lead of any church
 ii) men cannot claim exclusive leadership in Church
iii) leadership in Church is a partnership involving both men and women working TOGETHER.

TV01:

Here's why I'm confused

(a) The bible outlines area where women can take the lead, participate and/or minister. So you have not said either way if women can lead a church.
(b) With that in mind, can a woman lead a church?

The reason why I have not said that a woman (singular) can lead a church is that I do not read it so in the Bible. And the same applies to the man - I do not read it anywhere said that A MAN (singular) can lead a church.

The one thing I have been trying to consistently offer is that leadership in Church is not exclusive to men (nor even exclsuive to women)! Leadership in church is a partnership - a joint ministry; and I offered I Cor. 11:11 to help us constantly remember this point [Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord].

TV01:

(c) Overall leadership is (IMHO), and I'm happy to say so and stand to be corrected, if you can show it from scripture. Your ambiguous use of terms like "leadership roles" says not very much.

Uhm. . . I still haven't read you state what in your HO is "leadership". What is it really?

Besides, if "leadership roles" etc would not make for happy readings, I could as well offer thee xact wordings in our English Bibles and still retain the same sense.

TV01:

(d) How did you arrive at the "leadership partnership" conclusion? It is not a partnership between the sexes if that's what you meant. All the members of the body are in some way gifted and can contribute and of course work in partnership. That doesn't necessarily suggest leadershio roles for all. Eldership is reserved for mature males.

Sorry, if you go through the various examples I offered, you will see my point. This idea that leadership is an exclusive exercise to men (mature or otherwise) is a weak position to assume because that is the very thing I have been challenging all along - with references to the point.

When we see leadership as only that reserved to men, we fail to appreciate the various leadership roles/positions that women are called to offer in the Body of Christ.

TV01:

(e) Again, nobody is arguing against a universal priesthood, but why does that mean leadership? A priest offers up spiritual sacrifices and interceeds.

Please go back again and see that at least someone (sage) made reference to the OT priesthood as if that was evidence for an exclusive MEN-ONLY leadership in "pure worship" in the Church. Let me ask you here: where does that kind of reasoning lead - if not back to the same flawed position of seeing NT worship as a continuum of the OT worship?

That we all are priests (men and women) simply means that no one takes precedence in such spiritual matters above others. Who leads the NT worship?

TV01:

Just because the OT paradigm for priesthood is changed to be all-inclusive, it doesn't automatically imply that women can lead a NT church.

The point is that leadership is an exercise in partnership - not the exclusive preserve of male or female. They work TOGETHER!

TV01:

You keep trying to tie everything back to leadership. And at the same time you are being ambiguous on what exactly leadership is, especially overall leading of the flock.

Well, if I "keep trying to tie everything back to leadership" would that not be because this topic is asking inputs on that very same issue? Second, I am not being ambiguous on what exactly leadership is; nor yet on what I have taken the time to explicate regarding what I have offered. Do you care to be specific in what concerns you might want to raise about my submissions?

The "overall leading of the flock" is not something reserved exclusively to men!

TV01:

All can minister, all can serve, but not all can lead.

Perhaps that is what I have also offered in reference to James 3:1 - "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. ".

TV01:

To say that women have "leadership roles" is to essentially say nothing in regards to the specific question posed in this thread.

Really? Then do I take it that you deliberately refused to read inputs before making that assumption? Please clam down, go through once again, look up my references and how I tried to explicate them in regards to my persuasions; and afterwards please offer what you think I might be missing out on.

TV01:

Perhaps specifics would help.

I trust I've done that. Please refer.

Cheers.

@Stimulus,

The reason why I have not said that a woman (singular) can lead a church is that I do not read it so in the Bible. And the same applies to the man - I do not read it anywhere said that A MAN (singular) can lead a church.

Agreed. But my position is that overall leadership in the church (regardless of minor or subsidiary leadership roles) is limited to men (plurality of elders noted).

ii) men cannot claim exclusive leadership in Church

Under the Headship of The Lord, I believe they can.

Overall my view on your posts on this topic are as follows;

Yes we are all members of the Body. Yes we all joined together, have something to minister and thereby edify one another. Yes the priestly role is universal (presumably you know that priests offer spiritual sacrifices and intercede?). Yes the Spirit of God is poured out on all flesh (no gender bias, but may I ask in passing, is that Jews, Christians &/or Gentiles?). Yes the genders are complimentary and dependent one on the other. But why does any of this suggest that in a church setting women are to take anything other then secondary lead in well defined roles?

You’ve gone on and on about chauvinists, 2nd class citizens, oppressing women, male exclusivity ect (all very familiar militant feminist jargon), but you have singularly failed to demonstrate that women are to lead the flock of God in anything other than a subsidiary (or at best contingency) role.

You keep misapplying scripture that does not speak to a church setting, whilst ignoring those that do. In addition to the injunctions in 1 Cor & 2 Tim, the qualifications for eldership are clearly related to gender. Quoting “one in Christ” or “man without woman” in order to push female leadership is at best misguided. Nobody said women are without the Spirit, talents or ability. Indeed, verbally they are on average more gifted than men, so what?

Neither has anyone said that the roles women play in church are less than profound. But you also seem to miss it on some other points

~ You omit the profundity of the woman’ role in the home
~ You fail to understand that home is at least as important as church
~ You seem to fall into the trap of thinking leadership is about “power”. Maybe in secular terms, but in the Christian economy, it’s about service.
~ Being in Christ and being in church are not in all ways synonymous, as someone has pointed out, salvation is not the same as service.

Even if I agree to the idea of a partnership, that does not traduce the concept of gender separation, lines of authority, or areas of responsibility. A man and wife both come together to create a newborn. Please ask God why the differing roles are not gender neutral or interchangeable.

God bless
TV

@sage,

While I'll be waiting for your sequel, let me make the following remarks:

sage:

Korah felt that any Israelite who worshiped God should also be able to take the lead in worship and not what he thought was an elite class of Levites that he felt Moses was advocating.

(a) The question is about WOMEN in leadership - and I hope you can observe same and make it easier for people like TV01 who are concerned that "nobody is arguing against" the issues you have been offering.

(b) Korah did not feel that ANY Israelite should be able to take the lead in worship; that was why he chose a certain class of men. He and his companions chose "two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown" (Num. 16:2). There was no woman among Korah's select group; so please keep this in mind when discussing in your sequel.

(c) Korah as a levite as Moses; so the issue here was not tribal. Remember Moses clearly called Korah by his tribe: "And Moses said unto Korah, Hear, I pray you, ye sons of Levi" (Num. 16:8 ). Korah sought to assume a role that was not his; and that does not actually hold the grounds for the question of Women in Leadership among God's people.

--------

sage:

Uzzah was a God Fearing man who was among those bringing the Ark back to Jerusalem. . . In God’s divine arraignment of worship, only certain people could come near the ark in that manner. Uzzah disrespected God’s arraignment for worship and had to die, irrespective of how noble his intentions were.

Again, I'd like to ask TV01 to note this. Further, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll simply say that NT worship is NOT a continuum of OT worship. Today in Christ, every believer (men and women) are brought near to God: "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us" (Heb. 9:24 - "for US" - both men and women).

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

As Samuel latter showed him his good intentions did not count. What counted was that in trying to assume a position which he was not allowed, he disobeyed and disrespected that divinely ordained arraignment. It was not a case of anybody could take the lead as long as we are worshiping God. Only a designated person by God could take that lead for that worship to be acceptable to God. (Similar to what people say today that it does not matter who, as long as it is God they are trying to worship)

Again, leaders are appointed by God - and in the NT priesthood, both men and women are TOGETHER called in worship. The various spheres of leadership in the Bible of Christ is not a men-only ministry.

-----------

Miriam was a prophetess and a Levite woman who led fellow women in worship of God. At a point, she wanted to do more than that and assume a role which in God’s arraignment she was not allowed to do. She became discontent with her position in pure worship and started to desire a role that she could not have.

Atahliah was a woman who overstepped her place in Gods arraignment and felt she could assume a position which women were not allowed to. God executed her for that.

And what about Deborah the prophetess who judged the ENTIRE nation of Israel - did she assume that role on her own or was she made to suffer divine judgement from God for her leadership over the ENTIRE nation??

I hope when you come back, you would offer some balance on the points you want to make.

My examples were simply to show that God has placed headship in the christian congregation in a certain way and its not up to humans to change that. Yeah Korah was Levite and Datan and Abiram were Rubenites but the point i was trying to make is that they felt that Moses was promoting a certain class of people over another and that that was not God's will.

God had placed the leadership position in the hands of certain people and the Israelites (And he had his reasons) so regardless of what the other Israelites felt about it beign fair or not or discriminatory  they had to obey and follow it wholeheartedly if they were to have God's favour.

@Stimulus

There is this assertion i don't know if you are making

That under Christ there is neither male nor female therefore females can become the oversears, elders and Shephards and preside over the flock?

i still have not seen anything in the bible to support that kind of assertion if that is what you are saying.

There were female prophets in the old testament like Miriam and Deborah(who also served as a judge in her own case). It would be erronous to think that it changed divine standards.

Samuel was a judge like Deborah, but when it came to presiding over the worship of God he led the Israelites in Worship. This was a role no woman played in the bible.


You have cited Miriam leading fellow women in worship, Paul admonishing women to teach fellow women and the proclamation of Joel.

But these passages in no way contradict the fact that Leadership in worship was a role played only by men even under the first century Christian congregation.

@TV01,

TV01:

Agreed. But my position is that overall leadership in the church (regardless of minor or subsidiary leadership roles) is limited to men (plurality of elders noted).

I would appreciate you offering why this is so from Scripture - especially as regards the points I have offered showing the examples where women are called together with the men in Church leadership and authority.

TV01:

Under the Headship of The Lord, I believe they can.

They were not asked to do so; and that is why I have offered inputs in that regards. Claiming that they can do so by appeal to under "the Headship of Christ" would sound as if women are not a part of that same Body of which Christ is the Head -- Col. 1:18.

TV01:

Overall my view on your posts on this topic are as follows;

Yes we are all members of the Body. Yes we all joined together, have something to minister and thereby edify one another. Yes the priestly role is universal (presumably you know that priests offer spiritual sacrifices and intercede?). Yes the Spirit of God is poured out on all flesh (no gender bias, but may I ask in passing, is that Jews, Christians &/or Gentiles?). Yes the genders are complimentary and dependent one on the other. But why does any of this suggest that in a church setting women are to take anything other then secondary lead in well defined roles?

Excuse me, did I just read you say "secondary lead"? I thought the strain of your argument is that LEADERSHIP "(regardless of minor or subsidiary leadership roles) is limited to men"? This is where this weakness in that kind of argument lies: if leadership is the EXCLUSIVE preserve of men, then that throws out the idea that women can lead at all in any capacity - since you guys make it an EXCLUSIVE/LIMITED exercise to MEN-ONLY!!

Women are not called to take a "secondary lead" (nevermind the ambiguity in yours). They are called to exercise leadership in Church within the scope of I Cor. 14:34 and I Tim. 2:12 - to not teach in Church nor to usurp authority over men. As I have offered, this does not mean that women do not have other important roles of leadership to play in Church.

Now, as to the issue of "elders", we still make the same mistake of seeing them as a "men-only exclsuive preserve". Since I don't want my thoughts to run ahead of me, may I ask why you make this assumption?

TV01:

You’ve gone on and on about chauvinists, 2nd class citizens, oppressing women, male exclusivity ect (all very familiar militant feminist jargon), but you have singularly failed to demonstrate that women are to lead the flock of God in anything other than a subsidiary (or at best contingency) role.

For one, I am not a feminist. The terms I used may sound all that to you; but if you guys will just throw your male-exclusivity aside and sit down and see what God's Word has said about women, I'm sure that exclusivistic idea will melt away.

Second, you're coming back yet again arguing that I have not demonstrated that women are to lead the flock of God. TV01, do I take it that you simply just don't want to reason at all or what? My position is this:

1.   Leadership is Church is NOT the exclusive preserve of MEN (it is not a MEN-ONLY exercise)
2.   To assume that idea of MEN-ONLY is the direct opposite of FEMINISM
3.   men and women are TOGETHER called to lead; and as such it is NOT an exercise exclusive to either gender!

That is why I have offered examples after examples on these very points; and I have constantly reminded us of the fact by referring to I Cor. 11:11.

@TV01,

TV01:

You keep misapplying scripture that does not speak to a church setting, whilst ignoring those that do. In addition to the injunctions in 1 Cor & 2 Tim, the qualifications for eldership are clearly related to gender. Quoting “one in Christ” or “man without woman” in order to push female leadership is at best misguided. Nobody said women are without the Spirit, talents or ability. Indeed, verbally they are on average more gifted than men, so what?

If I have ignored scripture that speak to church setting, please what do you make of this that I offered earlier? --

I'm more persuaded that the apostle was setting forth matters concerning the church in that chapter, rather than domestic concerns:

vs. 5 -- "that the church may receive edifying";

vs. 12 -- "seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church".

vs. 19 -- "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words"

vs. 23 -- "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place"

vs. 26 -- "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together"

vs. 28 -- "let him keep silence in the church"

vs. 33 -- "as in all churches of the saints."

vs. 34 -- "Let your women keep silence in the churches"

These all demonstrate that rather than domestic concerns, that chapter deals with the collective life of the Church.

Besides, you may read my inputs as misguided; but how is it that you have not offered anything to apply the texts appropriately?

TV01:

Neither has anyone said that the roles women play in church are less than profound. But you also seem to miss it on some other points

They may not have said so verbatim; but you are one of those narrowing leadership to a MEN-ONLY exclsuive party! Now when you do that, where do you leave women in the Body of Christ?

TV01:

~ You omit the profundity of the woman’ role in the home

I did not omit the role of women in the home. If you would be happier that I offer some explicatory notes on that, I would gladly do so. My rejoinders so far have sought to remain within the context of the core question of the thread - and I'm not writing a book about the totality of women.

May I also observe that MEN have their own role-profundity in the home? (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? -- I Tim 3:4)

TV01:

~ You fail to understand that home is at least as important as church

I wasn't discussing the home either; nor do I confuse domestic affairs with Church life -- I have often and again distinguished between the two; so in what exactly have I "failed"? Did you ask me prior to this time? Or was anyone concerned about it to have missed your red pen?

TV01:

~ You seem to fall into the trap of thinking leadership is about “power”. Maybe in secular terms, but in the Christian economy, it’s about service.

And I have again and again spoken in terms of service, mentioning that the issues are about "God's economy" and not about secular power! Did you care to read my rejoinders?

TV01:

~ Being in Christ and being in church are not in all ways synonymous, as someone has pointed out, salvation is not the same as service.

Oh please! Did you read me anywhere stating that salvation and service are the same? Is it that simply wanted to force your ideas into my posts about a position I did not assume on this topic?

TV01:

Even if I agree to the idea of a partnership, that does not traduce the concept of gender separation, lines of authority, or areas of responsibility. A man and wife both come together to create a newborn. Please ask God why the differing roles are not gender neutral or interchangeable.

TV01, this one thing I ask of you: before you ramble on next time, have the patience of a gentleman and READ posts FIRST! If you're not clear - read them AGAIN! You're making it sound as if I have attempted to state issues the way you see them - whereas I have made the point clear already!

The hard work of women in worshiping God are appreciated even in the scriptures.

Paul compared the work of women who declear the good news of the kingdom of Christ to the nations to a Large army and he sent out commendation and encouragement to women who had laboured with him in his efforts.

But the question is who is to Oversee and preside over the Flock in worship?

I believe for us to do that we have to keep human reasoning to the side
and examine closely the example of the Master Jesus Christ and the First Century Christians who did God's will.

When Paul gave out the qualifications for those who would serve as Elders and Oversee the flock, it was clear that such positions of Oversight was reserved for Men
( In Timothy)

When issues affecting the first century congregation were to be decided, the holy spirit directed only men as elders to take leadership decisions (In Acts)

On a number of occassions that directives had to be issued to Congregations all over the world, the Elders were the ones that would take the lead in making decisions as regards to worship

Jesus Christ before he asscended to heaven had chosen only men as his apostles. When he gave instructions as to Oversight of the flock, it was to his male apostles (despite the presence of women disciples)

@Stimulus


What i don't understand though is that are you somehow suggesting that God's holy spirit directing only men to take the role of Elders and to have oversight of the flock in the first century was somehow Chauvunistic and discriminatory Does Jesus assigning the duty of Shepharding the flock to his male disciples somehow sexist?

Both Jesus and the First century Christians acted under the guidiance of God's holy spirit and fully had God's favour.

The reason i cited the examples i did was to show that humans might not fully comprehend why God makes certain arraingments when it comes to worship and leading in worship.

For eg some people in Israel might not have understood why God choose a certain group of people over another, and it might have even looked unjust in the eyes of humans but if they were to have God's approval, they had to subject to his will and follow the way of worship he approved of.

IN LIGHT OF THIS WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD REALLY ASK IS WHAT ROLE DO WOMEN PLAY IN THE BODY OF THE CHRIST? and not if they are allowed to Preside over the flock

@sage,

sage:

My examples were simply to show that God has placed headship in the christian congregation in a certain way and its not up to humans to change that. Yeah Korah was Levite and Datan and Abiram were Rubenites but the point i was trying to make is that they felt that Moses was promoting a certain class of people over another and that that was not God's will.

I wait to see what point that could bear upon what we have been discussing. In the Body of Christ, matters are not about what tribe one belongs to. Second, Korah's case was not as you pressume - it was rather this:

Num. 16:3 - "wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?"

This does not sound like your previous argument at all --

Korah felt that any Israelite who worshiped God should also be able to take the lead in worship and not what he thought was an elite class of Levites that he felt Moses was advocating.

Korah was not interested at all in the collective interest of "any Israelite". Rather, he was self-centered. Actually, in Biblical escatology, you would have to look for the underlying cause of a matter before drawing your inference. And if I may offer such in this narrative, you find that the real instigators who strove against Moses were Dathan and Abiram - they only used Korah as a stooge (since he was a Levite like Moses):

   "And the sons of Eliab; Nemuel, and Dathan, and Abiram. This is that Dathan and Abiram, which were
    famous in the congregation, who strove against Moses and against Aaron in the company of Korah,
    when they strove against the LORD"  -- Num. 26:9

In any case, the point is that I don't find how that relates to the case of barring women from leadership in the NT.

sage:

God had placed the leadership position in the hands of certain people and the Israelites (And he had his reasons) so regardless of what the other Israelites felt about it beign fair or not or discriminatory  they had to obey and follow it wholeheartedly if they were to have God's favour.

I understand; but what does that have to do with a MEN-ONLY leadership in the CHURCH?

sage:

There is this assertion i don't know if you are making

That under Christ there is neither male nor female therefore females can become the oversears, elders and Shephards and preside over the flock?

I know this hasn't been easy for some of us to see. But no, I haven't been making that kind of assertion.

    SALVATION: no gender distinctions (Gal 3:26-28)

     For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
     For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
     There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
     there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    SERVICE: distinctions made (I Cor. 11:3 & Eph. 5:23)
    But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
    and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

     APPLICATION: various services working together (I Cor. 11:11; 12:4-6)
     Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman,
     neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

     Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
     And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
     And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all
            - God works in all (not some)


So, where do I find leadership roles for women? I have offered previously a sketch from Ephesians 4 in my response to TayoD; and even much earlier on HELPS and GOVERNMENTS (I Cor. 12:28  - please refer).  

sage:

i still have not seen anything in the bible to support that kind of assertion if that is what you are saying.

Please go through the recommendations above.

sage:

There were female prophets in the old testament like Miriam and Deborah(who also served as a judge in her own case). It would be erronous to think that it changed divine standards.

I'm not asking if it changed divine standards. The question is simply this:

     Deborah JUGDED the entire nation of Israel - was she leader over the nation or NOT?
     If Deborah was such a leader unto whom the children of Israel came for judgement, did God
     account that as an abuse of His divine order? Was Deborah consequently jugded for that?

I am offering these questions again because many people who assume the MEN-ONLY leadership over God's people simply don't want to look at Deborah's case. Would it be that they fear that their own assertions that ALL kings and leaders in the OT were MEN - and so see how wrong they were??

sage:

Samuel was a judge like Deborah, but when it came to presiding over the worship of God he led the Israelites in Worship. This was a role no woman played in the bible.

Did you not say that those who were leaders over God's people were also responsible for worship? Is Deborah making you change your mind on what YOU said? Women must be powerful then!  

sage:

You have cited Miriam leading fellow women in worship, Paul admonishing women to teach fellow women and the proclamation of Joel.

But these passages in no way contradict the fact that Leadership in worship was a role played only by men even under the first century Christian congregation.

I'm still waiting for you to provide me with text showing that LEADERSHIP = WORSHIP!! Who was the leader of the worship of God's children under the NT?

@Sage,

It is difficult to respond to your posts because you tend to be superflous in your use of words. You say the same thing a thousand different ways and that makes it a task trying to debate with you.

However, one thing I noted and will respond to is the following coment:

My examples were simply to show that God has placed headship in the christian congregation in a certain way and its not up to humans to change that.

Headship exists only in marriage and not within the members of Christ's body. There is only one body with one head - Christ. Likewise in marriage, there is one body with one head - the man.

Declaring that headship exists within the Body of Christ is a blatant violation of the following scriptures.

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

Colossians 1:18 - And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Colossians 2:19 - And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

As you can see from these scriptures, Christ is the Head of one body - the Church, and the husband (not just any male), is the Head of His Wife (not all females).

This is the main contention I have with everyone on this thread. Until we realise that a male is no where given authority over the female strictly because of gender (with the exception of marriage), we will not even begin to appreciate the equality of both sexes within the body.

@sage,

sage:

The hard work of women in worshiping God are appreciated even in the scriptures.

Paul compared the work of women who declear the good news of the kingdom of Christ to the nations to a Large army and he sent out commendation and encouragement to women who had laboured with him in his efforts.

But the question is who is to Oversee and preside over the Flock in worship?

I believe for us to do that we have to keep human reasoning to the side
and examine closely the example of the Master Jesus Christ and the First Century Christians who did God's will.

I'm still asking to whom the gifts of Ephesians 4 were made - ONLY MEN? At least, I have offered somewhat how this works out in practical situations; and let us never forget that the Church did not exist until Acts 2. That is why I have offered that the Twelve apostles called by the Lord Jesus Christ BEFORE He went to the Cross does not mean that ONLY those Twelve remained apostles throughout the existence of the Church!

sage:

When Paul gave out the qualifications for those who would serve as Elders and Oversee the flock, it was clear that such positions of Oversight was reserved for Men
( In Timothy)

When issues affecting the first century congregation were to be decided, the holy spirit directed only men as elders to take leadership decisions (In Acts)

On a number of occassions that directives had to be issued to Congregations all over the world, the Elders were the ones that would take the lead in making decisions as regards to worship

Jesus Christ before he asscended to heaven had chosen only men as his apostles. When he gave instructions as to Oversight of the flock, it was to his male apostles (despite the presence of women disciples)

Again, I'm appealing to you not to mix up the dichotomy between the Twelve chosen before Christ went to the Cross; and the apostle He set in the Church after His ascension (Eph. 4:11). The problem here is that every so often we tend to mix them up and can't carefully delineate which is which. That is why it has remained quite difficult for us to see the scope of leadership to which women were called; and often times it seems we simply refuse to see the case, because most of us prefer to remain with the die-heard notion of exclusivity for MALE leadership.

sage:

What i don't understand though is that are you somehow suggesting that God's holy spirit directing only men to take the role of Elders and to have oversight of the flock in the first century was somehow Chauvunistic and discriminatory Does Jesus assigning the duty of Shepharding the flock to his male disciples somehow sexist?

I have not used those terms in my rejoinders; and I wonder why you guys are at pains to often interprete issues that way. Mr sage, I have again and again addressed this very question; but I now appeal to you guys - please calmly go through the points I made: perhspa you will see them.

sage:

Both Jesus and the First century Christians acted under the guidiance of God's holy spirit and fully had God's favour.

Does that mean the women did not have God's favour?

sage:

The reason i cited the examples i did was to show that humans might not fully comprehend why God makes certain arraingments when it comes to worship and leading in worship.

As far as God's Word reveals answers to most of the questions we have been asking, I don't think we should pretend our own assumptions as substitutes to those answers.

sage:

For eg some people in Israel might not have understood why God choose a certain group of people over another, and it might have even looked unjust in the eyes of humans but if they were to have God's approval, they had to subject to his will and follow the way of worship he approved of

And I have offered that using the arguments of the OT as basis for NT worship will simply miss the point - repeatedly. Let me repeat it once more:

Worship in the NT is not a continuum of OT worship!

I hope that last line would help us think and better appreciate NT issues.

@TayoD,

TayoD:

It is difficult to respond to your posts because you tend to be superflous in your use of words. You say the same thing a thousand different ways and that makes it a task trying to debate with you.

Well, I found the same problems in his posts and I'm learning to be patient - as many people have been patient with me as well.

TayoD:

As you can see from these scriptures, Christ is the Head of one body - the Church, and the husband (not just any male), is the Head of His Wife (not all females).

This is the main contention I have with everyone on this thread. Until we realise that a male is no where given authority over the female strictly because of gender (with the exception of marriage), we will not even begin to appreciate the equality of both sexes within the body.

I was just going to ask you: if the distinctions in relationship between the sexes are predicated upon marriage only, what about the UNmarried members of the Body of Christ - does I Cor. 11:3 not speak to them as well?

I Cor. 7: 32 "But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord"

vs. 34 - "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband."

Is leadership in the Body (especially as enunciated in Heb. 13:17) a matter for only those married? If not, what place then do the UNmarried have in the scheme of things enunciated in I Cor. 11:3?

@Stimulus

The problem really stems from the fact that you are trying to make it look like the oversight of the congregation which were done by only Men who were elders in the first century congregation under the guidiance of the holy spirit is somehow discriminatory and that if women are not allowed to lead that that somehow points towards discrimination.

@Stimulus and Tayo D

I used the examples of how true worship has been constructed throughout human history to shows that leadership roles have been reserved for certain people. in the christian congregation that role was open only to men. That does not mean the others worshiping God did not or do not have the same measure of his blessing and cannot serve in other capacities in the worship of God nor will not get the same reward

@sage,

sage:

The problem really stems from the fact that you are trying to make it look like the oversight of the congregation which were done by only Men who were elders in the first century congregation under the guidiance of the holy spirit is somehow discriminatory and that if women are not allowed to lead that that somehow points towards discrimination.

Again, I have stated severally and clearly that I do NOT see a discrimination - but BALANCE!!

I have also called attention to the fact that leadership in the Church is not exclusively for ONLY MEN, as women also have leadership roles to play in the ministry of the Body.

Third, please notice how I offered examples upon examples to show my persuasions; as well as often and repeatedly make the points that:

    i. leadership in Church is a calling of both men and women - a ministry in partnership (or, 'TOGETHER')

   ii. the scope of leadership for women is defined by two things: they are not to teach in Church nor to usurp authority over the men.

I hope once again you can see that I'm not holding out a discrimination against anyone?

sage:

I used the examples of how true worship has been constructed throughout human history to shows that leadership roles have been reserved for certain people. in the christian congregation that role was open only to men. That does not mean the others worshiping God did not or do not have the same measure of his blessing and cannot serve in other capacities in the worship of God nor will not get the same reward

I have offered just one question to you in this regard: where in the NT does LEARDERSHIP = WORSHIP?

In that same regard, I offered another like unto that: who was leading the worship of God's people in the NT?

It is not enough to assume a simplistic answer that ONLY MEN were cosen to lead in worship. To make such assumptions would mean that we're still confusing worship with leadership in service.

I asked what roles women were called to play in the Church - and I got no answers from you guys . . .until I made an attempt to offer examples upon examples. The default men-only idea would make one believe that a woman is synonymous to chores in the home and kitchen. Is that all there is for those who have been called and equipped to serve in the Church TOGETHER with the men?

ok Stimulus, take it easy bro

We have established that using Christian and Biblical Standards

1 Women cannot teach in the church

2 They are not allowed to try to Take over authority from men.

NOW COMES THE QUESTION OF WHAT ROLE CAN THEY PLAY AS REGARDS TO LEADERSHIP WITHIN THE BODY OF THE CHRIST.

Now we need to also go back and examine true Christianity as it was led by God.

When issues that needed leadership and handling came up in the first century issues like the Jew-Gentile divide and Circumcision, the holy spirit guided the Elders to give spiritual directives on the matter and to preside over such issues.
The case of becoming Elders or Presiding and Overseeing the flock was the duty of the Elders. It was/is not a role open to women. Before men could become appointed as oversears of the flock, they had to display the friutage of God's holy spirit and these appointments were made under God's guidiance.

Men appointed under the influence and Guidiance of Holy spirit were the only ones who lead the flock.


You mentioned Eph Chap 4. Il come back and analyze that and some of the other Scriptures you stated and discuss women as found in the body of the Christ

YES


What is wrong with dt?

And Stimulus

I don't understand understand you on the issue of the apostles too

You said that the Church was not yet formed then. I don't know what point you are trying to make with that.


Jesus had chosen his apostles and had assigned them Leadership roles among his followers. These apostles took the lead in the Church in Leading and Issuing directives.


Now my questions to you is

1 Why did Jesus Choose only men as his apostles and gave them Leadership roles in the Church that was to be established despite having faithful women who had toiled with him around him? Why did he not assign them any leadership role?

2 Can you please define what Leadership roles you say a woman can assume and what you mean by[b] difference in Leadership and worship[/b] (Bearing in mind that decisions affecting the congregations are the responsibility of the Elders and this decision making body were ONLY MEN as led by God's holy spirit)

Also as a note below

Parrallels exist b/w pure worship in Israel and under Christianity

1 In Israel Men, Women and Children were all called into the Old Convenant. Under the new convenant all also have an opportunity to worship God

2 All Israelities were entitled to the same blessings and rewards for staying a faithful course. All true Christians are entitled to that too today.

3 However only select people could lead the people in worship in accordance with God's arraingments. the same was true of First Century Christianity.

4 Like in Israel, the people that led in Worship were not in anyway more exaulted in the eyes of God than the rest who could not. They were all one in the eyes of God as long as they stayed the course.

The Men who took the lead in the First Century congregation were not more exaulted in God's eyes than other Christians. They all would be rewarded in the same way either male or female. But even at that, the Holy spirit appointed only Men to take the lead. This was no mistake

Tayo D had a point

Ive made quite a number of points but i need to put it in a concise manner, its all over the place. I would do that to ensure that we do not go over the same thing over and over again

But briefly i know my Points have covered the following

1 Precedents seen in the bible as regards to leadership in pure worship

2 What past examples show us as to the seriousness of the issue (some people think its a personal issue)

3 Qualifications for the position of Elder as outlined by the holy spirit.

4 How First Century Christianity Functioned and the example of Jesus and the early Christians

Guyz i have an idea

This issue can be clarified if we examine the Scriptures to see the role Elders(a role reserved only for Men appointed under the guidiance of the spirit) played.


@ Stimulus (After answering the 2 questions that i asked) and Tayo D

If you guys can use the scriptures to outline the role of Elders in the Church, then we all can see clearly what role women played/play in True worship.

TayoD:

However, one thing I noted and will respond to is the following coment: Headship exists only in marriage and not within the members of Christ's body. There is only one body with one head - Christ. Likewise in marriage, there is one body with one head - the man.

Declaring that headship exists within the Body of Christ is a blatant violation of the following scriptures.

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

Colossians 1:18 - And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Colossians 2:19 - And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

As you can see from these scriptures, Christ is the Head of one body - the Church, and the husband (not just any male), is the Head of His Wife (not all females).

This is the main contention I have with everyone on this thread. Until we realise that a male is no where given authority over the female strictly because of gender (with the exception of marriage), we will not even begin to appreciate the equality of both sexes within the body.

@ TayoD,

Lets talk around your point here.

First, I am in no way proclaiming universal male authority. Or the authority of every man (even if we restrict this to mature men - that is making a distinction b/w mature men and simply males) over every woman.

Secondly I also agree that Headship of the  Church is the preserve of he Lord Jesus Christ. His Body, His Bride. No dispute, no shaking.

I'd like to articulate how I see gender and status determining relationships and ultimately church and family order. Here goes.

Men can be sons, husbands, fathers (ideally in that order). Likewise, women can be daughters wifes and mothers.

Now a daughter (& a son) are under their fathers (parents) authority until such time as they get married. The only other status is one of being widowed.

A woman would go from her fathers house to her husbands. In the event of widowhood (as we see from Paul writing to Timothy), the family - normally in the form of adult males - become primarily responsible for her welfare. But there s male covering authority at all times.

With this in mind, when/wher/what/how would any woman in the congrgation not be subject to some sort of male authority?

You talk of adult - even mature - women (albeit unwed) as free voices, not subject to anyone once in the body of believers. I'd appreciate if you could explicate some more around this, as personally I don't see it.


@ Stimulus,

Maybe our literary styles are different, or maybe we are talking from different perspecrives and/or contrary premises.

As simply as I can state it.

~ I believe the overall leadership (true servant leadership and modelling maturity) in the office of elder is limited to men. Again it speaks to the dovetailing of the home and church. "If a man cannot rule his own home well" as you yourself quoted. Order starts in the home and flows to the church (TayoD is yet to convince me that women can be subject at home but rule in the church)

~ Women can minister/teach other women and juveniles and with authority (from the eldership). They can also counsel privately anyone that can benefit from their maturity, but they cannot in the presence of mature qualified and available men teach or presume overall leadership of the congregation. If one wants to see this ministry as a form of "leadership", I won't be semantic, but it is not shepherding the flock or overall leading the church. Biblically/historically, could/were women ever shepherds? 

~ Women have roles, abetted with skills, talents, gifts and of course the same Spirit and grace afforded to men. Their are joint heirs and equally valued by God.

I appreciate your efforsts, but I sometimes find it very hard to pin down your persuasions. I also understand that there are nuances to the discussion, but either way, it would be easier if we could discuss from stated views or considered opinions.

@ Sage,

I see and appreciate your attempts to show the continuum (whilst acknowledging the change) from OT to NT. I would say though that worship is not synonymous with leadership. Again, worship is first and foremost an individual matter before being a congregational affair. Indeed, hierarchy and authority are not necessarily indicators of devotion or true worship. Judas was an Apostle, but doubtless, true heartfelt devotion to and worship of the Lord came from many of the women who ministered to Him as opposed to stole from and betrayed Him.

God bless
TV

@TV01

I like the way you present your points. Very detailed and concise

Infact thi sums up the whole discussion. The point ive been trying to make

TV01:

~ Women can minister/teach other women and juveniles and with authority (from the eldership). They can also counsel privately anyone that can benefit from their maturity, but they cannot in the presence of mature qualified and available men teach or presume overall leadership of the congregation. If one wants to see this ministry as a form of "leadership", I won't be semantic, but it is not shepherding the flock or overall leading the church. Biblically/historically, could/were women ever shepherds?
~ Women have roles, abetted with skills, talents, gifts and of course the same Spirit and grace afforded to men. Their are joint heirs and equally valued by God.


God bless
TV

@Tv01

Once again so straight to the point and accurate.

I wonder where people get their ideas from and Where in True Christianity women could shephard the flock

@sage,

I have been quite occupied up until just now; and I'd like to make this very quick before returning to my tight schedule. Many thanks for the recent concerns expressed in both yours and TV01's. For the most part, you seem to have again repeated yourself in the several new replies. However, rather than go through every line in my rejoinder, I'll just highlight the salient points and deal with them.

sage:

I don't understand understand you on the issue of the apostles too

You said that the Church was not yet formed then. I don't know what point you are trying to make with that.


Jesus had chosen his apostles and had assigned them Leadership roles among his followers. These apostles took the lead in the Church in Leading and Issuing directives.

If you carefully follow my points, you would see that I've tried to carefully delineate apostolic gifts in the Church from the Twelve chosen before the Church came into existence. Let me put it simply again:

(a) the Twelve apostles chosen before Christ went to the Cross -
'And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve,
            whom also he named apostles' - Luke 6:13.

(b) other apostles chosen after by the risen and ascended Lord Jesus -
'Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave
gifts unto men. . . And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers' - Eph. 4:8 & 11

During the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus, there were only Twelve apostles (Judas by transgression fell, and Matthias was chosen by lot in his place - Acts 1:25-26). After His resurrection and ascension, the Lord gave gifts unto men, among whom were apostles - meaning that there were more than Twelve apostles when the Church came into existence in Acts 2. (Incidentally, I've severally asked TV01 earlier how many apostles he saw in the NT; but he couldn't give me a clear answer either)

sage:

1 Why did Jesus Choose only men as his apostles and gave them Leadership roles in the Church that was to be established despite having faithful women who had toiled with him around him? Why did he not assign them any leadership role?

For one, the Church did not exist until Acts 2. So we should carefully note that during His earthly ministry, the Lord Jesus kept within the context of the Jews stipulations for worship. He could not have chosen women at the time because Eph. 4:8 & 11 happened only after His ascension.

Secondly, when the Body of Christ was formed on earth by the descent of the Holy Spirit, certain Jewish perceptions were initially still adhered to (as in apostle Peter's case in Acts 10 where he had to give up his Jewish prejudice against the Gentiles - 'how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation', vs. 28 ). However, as the Church grew and through the conversion and ministry of apostle Paul we come to see the various leadership roles each one had in the Body of Christ - 'But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ' (Eph. 4:7). The gifts delineated in vs. 11 were not given to only males, as vs. 7 makes clear that such gifts included women who were also in the Body of Christ as well.

@sage,

sage:

2 Can you please define what Leadership roles you say a woman can assume and what you mean by difference in Leadership and worship (Bearing in mind that decisions affecting the congregations are the responsibility of the Elders and this decision making body were ONLY MEN as led by God's holy spirit)

A. First, let me attempt to distinguish between leadership and worship.

(a) Leadership is defined in terms of responsibility to care for others in various capacities according to God's gifting. It also involves training others for the ministry to fulfill their various callings towards the one goal of edifying the Body unto maturity.

Ephesians 4:12 & 13 might help us understand this point: 'For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ'.

(b) Worship is a collective response which the saints offer as spiritual sacrifices to God. In this understanding, everyone (men and women) are priests together; and no one 'presides' over this matter or take the 'lead' in the NT priestly worship of Christians. That is why I have asked for a reference where ONLY MEN were 'presiding over' the worship of NT believers; as I haven't come across any such references.

The difference between leadership and worship can be delineated as follows:

(i) leadership is exercised towards others in terms of ministry to people
(ii) worship is a collective response of people towards God

(i) leadership involves people functioning in various capacities over others.
(ii) worship involves every saint standing on only one ground: priests.


B. Secondly, at the risk of repeating myself, let me once again offer you some leadership roles for women in the Church.

(a) I have offered a few in the following links:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.96.html#msg1250862
i. Women are also priests in the NT
ii Women are also to prophesy in Church
iii. Women could also be leaders in HELPS and GOVERNMENTS in Church


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.128.html#msg1252382
Women as teachers of good things - Titus 2:3-5.


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.128.html#msg1256170
Leadership roles of women from Ephesians 4 (my reply to TayoD)


(b) In addition, let me make a few remarks as to the concerns here about this polemic subject of women shepherding God's people. I have been making the case for just one thing: leadership in the Body of Christ is a partnership, rather than an exercise exclusively devoted to men.

(i) In the OT, there are examples indeed of women who were called to be leaders over God's people. I have severally offered the distinguished example of Deborah; and up until now none of you have been able to debunk the fact that she was indeed a leader set over the entire nation of Israel when she judged them (Judg. 4:4-5).

(ii) Another example indeed is Miriam. Now, please I beg you all to carefully note the point I have been making - and in this case, she was not the exclusive leader (or 'shepherd') over the entire nation; and observe also that neither was shepherding over God's people a matter of "men only" (Moses and Aaron). The Word of God makes clear that as far as leadership in this context was concerned, it was a joint exercise involving all three -

For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of
the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.
(Mic. 6:4)

Why is it that people have continued to miss this very point? I offer that it is simply because we have always tried to read "only males" into this issue; but until we open our eyes and see what God has been saying, we continue to miss the fact that women were also called as partners in shepherding God's people. Each one is called to a distinct service; nevertheless, that is an exercise that is jointly managed by men and women.

I hope I have helped your understanding on this point?

Perhaps I'll have time to come back before the end of the week to deal with other issues - especially with the examples in the NT on the joint exercise of leadership in the Church. At the moment, keep constantly in mind that what I'm trying to offer is that men were not called to "go it alone" in this exercise; and it's quite unfortunate that the idea of 'overall leadership' is a human idea interjected to continue this drive for an men-only world in the leadership of the Church.

@TV01,

I appreciate the points you have tried to offer for your persuasion; and in part I agree with some of them. However, here is something that I'd like you to reconsider when dealing with leadership :

TV01:

First, I am in no way proclaiming universal male authority. Or the authority of every man (even if we restrict this to mature men - that is making a distinction b/w mature men and simply males) over every woman.

So far so good. This may all sound nice; but I wonder how such statements are again contradicted when we try to read how they are used in practical application. It would seem that this statement has no appeal when leadership in the Body of Christ is concerned:

1.

TV01:

A woman would go from her fathers house to her husbands. In the event of widowhood (as we see from Paul writing to Timothy), the family - normally in the form of adult males - become primarily responsible for her welfare. But there s male covering authority at all times.

2.

TV01:

With this in mind, when/wher/what/how would any woman in the congrgation not be subject to some sort of male authority?

You see what my concerns are in discussing this subject with you guys? On the one hand, you're "in no way proclaiming a universal male authority. .  or the authority of every man over every woman".

However, when applying your own statement to your persuasions, it has become the very opposite, so that the poser is that "there s male covering authority at all times". . . and "when/how would any woman in the congrgation not be subject to some sort of male authority?"

Bros, it just won't work both ways - they are very contradictory positions to assume.

TV01:

Maybe our literary styles are different, or maybe we are talking from different perspecrives and/or contrary premises.

Only partly, I pressume.

TV01:

~ I believe the overall leadership (true servant leadership and modelling maturity) in the office of elder is limited to men. Again it speaks to the dovetailing of the home and church. "If a man cannot rule his own home well" as you yourself quoted. Order starts in the home and flows to the church (TayoD is yet to convince me that women can be subject at home but rule in the church)

Order in the home helps in part; but it does not define Church life. And again, leadership is simply leadership; therefore, the idea of "overall leadership" ascribed to solely the men is not what Scripture says; and I have tried to demonstrate this partly in my rejoinders to sage. Leadership is a joint exercise; not an exclusive one.

TV01:

~ Women can minister/teach other women and juveniles and with authority (from the eldership). They can also counsel privately anyone that can benefit from their maturity, but they cannot in the presence of mature qualified and available men teach or presume overall leadership of the congregation. If one wants to see this ministry as a form of "leadership", I won't be semantic, but it is not shepherding the flock or overall leading the church. Biblically/historically, could/were women ever shepherds?

I have offered a few examples of women called in joint exercise of leadership in the area of shepherding. Let me sound this once more: shepherding is only one of the types of leadership (it is not the only issue that defines leadership).

Second, women do not receive their authority from the eldership. The case is simply that authority comes from the Head of the Body.

Third, the idea that women can minister/teach other women and juvenile is still trying to limit their scope of leadership narrower than the Word defines. How? Men also can minister/teach juveniles as well; so I wouldn't see why that role should be more fitting only for women.

I already gave the example of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts 18 - both the man and the woman together "expounded" the way of God more perfectly to Apollos (vs. 26). Not many people realize that the woman here was fulfilling a role in leadership when she partnered with her husband to 'expound' (make an intelligent exposition of) God's way more perfectly to the very intelligent Apollos.

TV01:

~ Women have roles, abetted with skills, talents, gifts and of course the same Spirit and grace afforded to men. Their are joint heirs and equally valued by God.

I don't disparage that at all. The question is: what would those talents, skills and gifts point to? What "roles" do you think women have (as you said here)?

TV01:

I appreciate your efforsts, but I sometimes find it very hard to pin down your persuasions. I also understand that there are nuances to the discussion, but either way, it would be easier if we could discuss from stated views or considered opinions.

I've been trying my best to simplify things, and will continue to do so. What is constantly before me is that whatever I offer should not simply be theories; but practical and applicable as well.