@ Thief you asked me if i agree with those things.

@ Stimulus to end this debate

I want the two of you to answer these following questions


Was God and Jesus discriminatory, sexist, causing divisions and class, racisct, Chauvunistic etc When

1. God apointed only males to serve as priests

2 only males to serve as Levites (Only a certain designated tribe. What made this tribe more qualified than others?)

3 Only males to instruct the gathering of his true people and take the lead in worship

4 God approved of only Male kings (since the kings also played a major role in worship)

5 When he selected a certain group of people to be a choosen people


[b]NOW THIS IS THE BIG PART[/b]

6 Jesus selected only Males to be his apostles and take the lead in the Christian congregation (even though he had many faithful women close to him)

7 Only males took leadership decisions in the first century christian congregation in matters of worship, even though the women who had faithfully followed Jesus and other righteous women were there?

8 The holy spirit inspired Paul to admonish Christian women in Timothy and in Corinthians

@ Stimulus

If Biblical precedent does not count, Jesus example does not count, and the example of First century Christianity which clearly had God's blessings does not count then we might go ahead and nd this discussion here.

REMEMBER JESUS CALLED PEOPLE TO BE HIS FOLLOWERS , AND IN ALL THE DISCUSSIONS IVE HAD WITH YOU, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING THAT

Dude you are answering a question with a question. Berra answer me, jare

Btw that line in Corinthians about not speaking in church blah blah is alot like a certain part of the Q-uran that most Christians consider to be chauvinistic. The irony.

@sage,

I'm not surprised that you've come back in your characteristic equivocation of tendering questions where you've refused to answer those offered you? I left you three questions previously; but then I'll oblige you yours:

sage:

Was God and Jesus discriminatory, sexist, causing divisions and class, racisct, Chauvunistic etc When

1. God apointed only males to serve as priests

2 only males to serve as Levites (Only a certain designated tribe. What made this tribe more qualified than others?)

3 Only males to instruct the gathering of his true people and take the lead in worship

Neither God nor Christ were being "discriminatory", if that's how you deliberately want to read it. You have failed to observe the dichotomy between OT and NT worship styles; and that is the one huge problem you'd need to settle for yourself before anything else.

sage:

4 God approved of only Male kings (since the kings also played a major role in worship)

Are you deliberately forgetting the case of Deborah the prophetess (Judg. 4:4-5)? The Bible says that "she judged Israel at that time"; and also that "the children of Israel came up to her for judgment". She was definitely a leader over the nation of Israel - which is why again and again I've asked that you kindly broaden your perspective and see that WOMEN were also leaders over God's people.

sage:

5 When he selected a certain group of people to be a choosen people

From the very beginning He had pronounced that His salvation would reach the ends of the earth (Gen. 18:18 ). He was not being "discriminatory" as you assumed.

sage:

NOW THIS IS THE BIG PART

6 Jesus selected only Males to be his apostles and take the lead in the Christian congregation (even though he had many faithful women close to him)

Christianity did not end at the last chapter of the Gospel of John. The same Jesus Christ chose others besides the Twelve to be apostles - as we read in Eph. 4:9-12. What is important to note here is that there were women who were noted among the apostles (Rom. 16:7). Although many people argue against the latter case as to whether the names there are feminine or masculine; yet we cannot discount the fact that women were also chosen to be leaders in the Body of Christ, as I have demonstrated earlier.

sage:

7 Only males took leadership decisions in the first century christian congregation in matters of worship, even though the women who had faithfully followed Jesus and other righteous women were there?

In the formulative years of the Church, there were issues that were still strongly held as carry-overs from Judaism. But as the testimony matured, we recognize that the apostle Paul noted that women were not to be discriminated against in this same matter of decision-making in the affairs of the Church. Please refer to my earlier rejoinder where I outlined that "HELPS" and "GOVERNMENTS" are not the exclusive preserve of men - for women were also in view of such gifts there (I Cor. 12:28 ).

sage:

8 The holy spirit inspired Paul to admonish Christian women in Timothy and in Corinthians

It is the same Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to recognize that women also could be teachers as well unto other women - a ministry which CANNOT be precided over by men:

"The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed" -- (Titus 2:3-4)

Can you see that the call for a men-only leadership in Church is actually not what is taught in the Bible? Women also have leadership roles to play in Church; and the sooner men begin to realize this, the better it serves the Body of Christ!  

@sage,

sage:

If Biblical precedent does not count, Jesus example does not count, and the example of First century Christianity which clearly had God's blessings does not count then we might go ahead and nd this discussion here.

Dude, you're the one person sobbing on your own. Who ever said the Biblical precedence does not count? The one thing you've been trying to do is narrow that precedence to your chauvinistic world and make the Bible subject to it.

sage:

REMEMBER JESUS CALLED PEOPLE TO BE HIS FOLLOWERS , AND IN ALL THE DISCUSSIONS IVE HAD WITH YOU, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING THAT

Doing what? My one consistent discussion with you is the appeal that you open your eyes and recognize the indispensable roles that God has called WOMEN to play in the Body of Christ according to the same Bible where you cop out your selective reading.

ThiefOfHearts:

Dude you are answering a question with a question. Berra answer me, jare

You're wasting your time - join the party! No be today oga sage dey circumvent questions!

@Thief

Lets say you are asking me if i agree with with the precedent found in the bible with regards to the worship of God.

Well im not in a position to alter that or reinterprete it or assign injustice as what it was. Those people believed that there were following the Instructions of God. We all have our opinions and beliefs. They were looking at this issue with the bible as their base. If it was just a matter of personal opinions, then it wont be an issue. I just got involved coz people now wanted to use the bible to justify personal opinion of what they percieve is right, fair and just. No way

@Thiefofhearts. You are not the only one that liked my comments in other posts. People liked my posts in Sports and Travel sections coz i always tried to be direct and layed out the facts

Ive been in Nairaland for almost all its existence and i hadly ever posted in the religious section until recently. Too much pointless debates.

If people say they base what they are saying on the bible, then let it be the bible and in that case its quite diffrerent from people stating personal opinions

sage:

If people say they base what they are saying on the bible, then let it be the bible and in that case its quite diffrerent from people stating personal opinions

I hope you can see that the quotes have not been taken from magazines or other sources to point you back to the Bible?

sage, what is your own personal opinion about it though

@Stimulus

Okay now i know its pointless. Women like Miriam also had a role to play in Ancient Israel. She presided over fellow women. Quoting Acts and Timothy . In Timothy they could only teach Fellow Women within the congregation


Well il open my eyes like you said. The congregation that had God's favour was not mature.

We are all entitled to our opinions though. No harm.

If Jesus felt women had presiding duties he would have assigned them that

If the first century congregation that fully had God's favour would not have women in presiding oversight


Well by asking those questions that i did illustrating Biblical precedents maybe, just maybe i am the one beign Chauvunistic, sexist, narrow minded bigot.



aight Stimulus, its still all good over here

@ThiefofHearts

Jesus had women who had deep Love for God all around him. But when he assigned Shepharding and Leading roles he gave it only to Men. Probably he was reflecting the will of his Father.

About your question though il have the same answer that you would have if somebody asked you

Is it fair that a man can have up to 1000 or even 10,000 kids in his life time while a woman can't have more than 20

Is it fair that a man can have 100 kids in a single year and a woman can only have 1 (maybe twins, triplets)

At thief il like to see ur answer though

@sage,

sage:

If Jesus felt women had presiding duties he would have assigned them that

Remember that the Church did not exist until Acts 2; so if the NT precedence for HELPS and GOVERNMENTS (I Cor. 12:28) came after the resurrection and ascension of Christ, we can well understand that such deals with Church Life.

sage:

Well by asking those questions that i did illustrating Biblical precedents maybe, just maybe i am the one beign Chauvunistic, sexist, narrow minded bigot.

Now, now. . bros. I didn't quite mean it like that on your person. No vex.    Remember I included myself in that as well until I began to challenge my previously held chauvinistic views?

But like you said, everyone is entitled to their opinions. God bless you plenty. 

Not exactly fair but thank God for that, too many kids in the world as is

Really though what Im curious about is, ok fine you believe that the Bible says that a woman shouldnt lead worship over men yada yada, now my question is why do you think that is and even then would you say it's right?

and stop throwing questions at me!

STIMULUS,
I'd also like to advise you to stop wasting ur time trying to make "sage" see things your way. you have proper citations of what supports ur views. God is not prejudice and does not discriminate against men or women. what i've learned from NL is dat it's very hard to crack or widen a narrow mind.

ghettochyk:

STIMULUS,
I'd also like to advise you to stop wasting your time trying to make "sage" see things your way. you have proper citations of what supports your views. God is not prejudice and does not discriminate against men or women. what i've learned from Nairaland is that it's very hard to crack or widen a narrow mind.

@gettochyk. Hmmmmmmmmnnnn, if you knew my posts b/4 this in other sections, u will know im not narrow minded

Im not trying to see things Stimulus way. If you went through my posts u will see that i was not stating my personal opinion, just stating Scrptural precedents as it pertains to the true worshp of God as seen in the bible. Acts quotation from Joel, Miriam leading fellow women and Paul telling women they could teach fellow women within the congregation does not conflict already set divine arraingments when it comes to who can oversee, preside over and teach the congreated people of God, a role reserved only for Men. Soebody quoting it to suggest otherwise

@Thief il say its just one of those things that we are not in a position to change, something thats not in the hands of humans.
Its like you said about procreation. Irrespective of how we see it, its not in our Juridsdiction to change.

You admitted that from a human standpoint, the questions that i asked you might be seen as unfair. But since God has no injustice in his part and he designed it, what is a mere human supposed to do about it.

@stimulus,

You have presented a very concise case which I am partly in agreement with. I'm very much aware of the scriptures you laid out and agree only to an extent with your interpretations. To clarify issues, I think we need to outline what the contentions are. These in my understanding are:

1. A woman usurping authority over a man.

2. A woman teaching in church (apart from older women teaching the younger ones).

With respect to the first issue, I am very much persuaded that the Bible is refering to a Man and Wife situation and not a Male to Female situation. The implications of interpreting the verse to mean a Male-Female relationship is to propagate the notion that ALL females are by default under the authority of any human with a Penis (I hope my use of words do not offend anyone).

My response to the second part will be in the form of questions.
a. Is 'teaching' a means of usurping authority?
b. Am I now in error when I read books written by women? Joyce Meyers and Gloria Copeland are among the best teachers I know in the Body of Christ?
c. Don't you think Titus 2:3-4 is actually relying on the experience of older wpmen as advisers to younger ones and not an attempt to cut out a role for them to teach the Word of God?
d. Don't you think Titus 2:3-4 is specific to older women and not to all women? How does that relate to the Prophecy in Joel with specific mention of young women.

I hope we can move forward from here and not keep marking time on one spot.

@topic,

The one thing that gladdens my heart is that some issues have been clarified in the very interesting outlines in stimulus' argument. Sometimes, we tend to overlook certain issues and just assume a one-off default position without carefully looking into Scripture to re-check on our previously-held assumptions.

The concerns could be further delineated this way:

  What roles are women called to play in Church?

  Do women have any leadership roles in the Body of Christ?

  What is the sphere and extent of female leadership in Church, if any?

Some of the previous arguments have tended to make female leadership in church a non-existent issue. By the way, is there such a concept as worship leaders in the NT? If such a concept at all is in the minds of some of us, then does that in itself not mean that such people are seeing NT worship in terms of OT garb?

The one thing we should now understand is that the Body of Christ is not a sphere where only men are to be heard and women are to be mute. As has been pointed out already, men and women are called together to be leaders in Church. It is a partnership in the NT priesthood, rather than a male-only priviledge exercise.

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

@TayoD,

TayoD:

With respect to the first issue, I am very much persuaded that the Bible is refering to a Man and Wife situation and not a Male to Female situation.

b. Am I now in error when I read books written by women? Joyce Meyers and Gloria Copeland are among the best teachers I know in the Body of Christ?

I think something is missing in the chain of your argument here. First, you interpret the issue of authority as a man-and-wife situation; but then you ignore that when you ask to read books by those women you consider the "best teachers" in the Body of Christ!

In simple terms, what you're arguing seems to be this:

(a) you see the verse that women should not teach (I Tim. 2:12) as limited to just a man and wife situation; but -

(b) you don't see the issue as still a man-and-wife situation when you call some women the "best teachers" in the Body of Christ.

Do you see why arguments like this will continue to mark time on just one spot? It would seem to me that what is offered in I Tim. 2:12 alligns with the same overall picture about women assuming to teach in the CHURCHES in I Cor. 14:34. The point is that, we should not just narrow this question of women assuming to teach as a domestic issue between man and his wife; it pertains to the collective Church scenario.

@ghettochyk,

ghettochyk:

I'd also like to advise you to stop wasting your time trying to make "sage" see things your way. you have proper citations of what supports your views.

Well, many thanks for your commendation. Like you said, it's going to be hard trying to make sage (or anyone for that matter) see things my way; but on the other hand as he himself has stated, he was trying to see things rather from what he offered as Scriptural precedence for this very engaging topic.

@topic,
The question is not just one about whether a church is led by a woman or man. Often times, when it becomes as simplistic as that, then we make the mistake of seeing things for the most part as an exclusively men's world.

Rather than see it that way, I'm trying to offer a balance from what I believe Scripture presents to us on this issue. It is a matter of partnership in leadership (as pilgrim1 has rightly observed). It is a question of leading together in various capacities in the one Body of Christ, remembering that in this regard the Bible says:

           "Nevertheless
           (^A) neither is the man without the woman,
            (^B) neither the woman without the man,
           in the Lord."
            (I Cor. 11:11).

In other words, one should seek a balance and not make (A) the only thing that matters in leadership without the complement vital role of (B) in the Body of Christ.

Church authority and leadership is not a matter men-only-world. The one thing that we can all agree on at this time is that women are not to usurp authority over men in matters of teaching the Churches - both aspects well presented in the verses under review (I Cor. 14:34 and I Tim. 2:12).

@TayoD,

I very much appreciate your understanding and the concerns you've raised on this subject. In addition to what pilgrim.1 has offered in reply, let me see what little else I might proffer:

TayoD:

These in my understanding are:

1. A woman usurping authority over a man.

With respect to the first issue, I am very much persuaded that the Bible is refering to a Man and Wife situation and not a Male to Female situation. The implications of interpreting the verse to mean a Male-Female relationship is to propagate the notion that ALL females are by default under the authority of any human with a Penis (I hope my use of words do not offend anyone).

Well, let's look at the implication of your counter-point here. First, I applaud pilgrim.1's response to that, in the sense that I Tim. 2:12 speaks to the point of a man-woman relationship in the Body of Christ; rather than merely to a domestic situation at home. I believe that I Tim. 2:12 and I Cor. 14:34 tessellate perfectly on the core question of leadership and authority in Church; and I suppose that is why it is not by coincidence that the arrangement is first offered before its application.

       The divine arrangement:

       "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."
        (I Cor. 11:3)

       "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."
        (Eph. 5:23)


       In application:

       "Nevertheless
           (^A) neither is the man without the woman,
           (^B) neither the woman without the man,
           in the Lord."
           (I Cor. 11:11).

       "But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
       From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
       according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto
       the edifying of itself in love."
         (Eph. 4:15-16)


Now notice a few things given to us in Ephesians 4. The risen and ascended Christ gave gifts unto men (generically implying men and women) (vs. 8 ). Then in verse 11 some of those gifts are stated: "he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers".

Here's the catch: if it is true that these gifts relate to a situation exclusively for MEN (males), would that not be contradicting the very fact that verses 15 and 16?? Notice that the gifts in vs. 11 point to a purpose given in vs. 12  --

             (a) For the perfecting of the saints,
             (b) for the work of the ministry,
             (c) for the edifying of the body of Christ

The "edifying of the Body of Christ" is also mentioned in vs. 16 as made possible by the participation of EVERY part - both men and women (the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love).

Since the Body of Christ is not an exclusive club for MEN in trousers, but also has has WOMEN in very involved roles in it, the "edifying of ITSELF in love" would be something difficult for many people if they do not take time to recognize that WOMEN are in view as well in those verses.

Further, let's see a few things that speaks of a partnership in the Body according to Ephesians 4:15-16:

        (a) the whole body is 'fitly joined together and compacted'

        (b) the ministry is by 'that which every joint supplieth' (women not left out)

        (c) the effectual working is according to 'the measure of every part' (including the women)

        (d) the result is that it 'maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love'.

Dear bros, can you see that women are called TOGETHER with the men to participate in BODY minsitry - and they have been given the necessary gifts as well to do so?  I would like to take this further if called upon to do so; but thus far is my point - that women have an indispensable ministry in the Body of Christ; and as such, they hold places of leadership and authority in the Church as do the men (of course, not forgetting the one explicit injunction that they do not usurp authority over the men).

@pilgrim_1,

I think something is missing in the chain of your argument here. First, you interpret the issue of authority as a man-and-wife situation; but then you ignore that when you ask to read books by those women you consider the "best teachers" in the Body of Christ!

In simple terms, what you're arguing seems to be this:
(a) you see the verse that women should not teach (I Tim. 2:12) as limited to just a man and wife situation; but -
(b) you don't see the issue as still a man-and-wife situation when you call some women the "best teachers" in the Body of Christ.
Do you see why arguments like this will continue to mark time on just one spot? It would seem to me that what is offered in I Tim. 2:12 alligns with the same overall picture about women assuming to teach in the CHURCHES in I Cor. 14:34. The point is that, we should not just narrow this question of women assuming to teach as a domestic issue between man and his wife; it pertains to the collective Church scenario.

You have misunderstood me altogether. I am absolutely in support of women preaching in church and holding any office that is available within the body. I'll explain my stand further in response to Stimulus. I just feel she limited the role of women by her submission. Please go to my subsequent reply to stimulus to understand my thoughts a little better.

@TayoD,

TayoD:

2. A woman teaching in church (apart from older women teaching the younger ones).

My response to the second part will be in the form of questions.
a. Is 'teaching' a means of usurping authority?

Two things were mentioned in I Tim. 2:12 -- "But ^(A)[/b]I suffer not a woman to teach, [b]nor ^(B)[/b]to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Teaching could be one of the several ways of usurping authority; but it ought not to be the only means that such is demonstrated. The gist here in connection is one that gives the idea of trying to be a "master" - and in that understanding, we know what it connotes. Sample these:

(a) "[b]Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither" - (Matt. 22:16)

(b) "Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master (lit. teacher) of Israel, and knowest not these things?" (John 3:10)

(c) "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation." (James 3:1)

In it is this respect that women are cautioned that they be careful to not be "teachers" (masters) in the Churches, for that would be a contradiction of God's set order in His economy in the Body of Christ.

TayoD:

b. Am I now in error when I read books written by women? Joyce Meyers and Gloria Copeland are among the best teachers I know in the Body of Christ?

Now if you read I Tim. 2:12 as constrained within the idea of a man-and-wife situation; then again you are in error. Because, in the first place, you're neither married to any of these "best teachers"; and in the second place, I hope you've not set them as the "best masters" in the Body of Christ?

Lol, okay. . . I was being facetious there. But even so, I don't believe the premise of your argument is balanced. Once we've first taken care of the scope of I Tim. 2:12, then the argument of I Cor. 14:34 will become clear.

TayoD:

c. Don't you think Titus 2:3-4 is actually relying on the experience of older wpmen as advisers to younger ones and not an attempt to cut out a role for them to teach the Word of God?

Now, if my argument was trying to cut out a role for them to teach, it would mean that the women earlier referred to as the "best teachers" are doing something wrong! Experience counts on both sides (men and women), so I wouldn't see Titus 2:3-4 as applying only to the women.

Tit. 2:2 - "That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience."

'Age' here is not in terms of years; rather it is in terms of development and maturity in the faith - and it applies to everyone who takes a leading position in the affairs of Church life.

TayoD:

d. Don't you think Titus 2:3-4 is specific to older women and not to all women? How does that relate to the Prophecy in Joel with specific mention of young women.

The answer is again on either part of the men and women (whether young or old). Of course, not all men can teach either; nor are all men necessarily teachers. And of those who teach (whether men or women), the one thing that cannot be overlooked is that they should be mature in the faith before even assuming their roles.

Now, Joel's prophecy simply tells us that God's outpouring of the Spirit is not limited to just males - unlike as it was in the OT. Sons and Daughters would prophesy, it says; and this should speak to us well enough about the fact that in I Cor. 12, the ministry gifts of the Spirit are not limited or exclusive to just males.

TayoD:

I hope we can move forward from here and not keep marking time on one spot.

I trust so. Regards.  

I just feel she limited the role of women by her submission. Please go to my subsequent reply to stimulus to understand my thoughts a little better.

I'll patiently await yours.

Cheers.

@Stimulus,

I very much appreciate your understanding and the concerns you've raised on this subject. In addition to what pilgrim.1 has offered in reply, let me see what little else I might proffer:

You know I appreciate you as well. You provided a breathe of fresh air from those who read total female silence in church into the scripture.

Well, let's look at the implication of your counter-point here. First, I applaud pilgrim.1's response to that, in the sense that I Tim. 2:12 speaks to the point of a man-woman relationship in the Body of Christ; rather than merely to a domestic situation at home. I believe that I Tim. 2:12 and I Cor. 14:34 tessellate perfectly on the core question of leadership and authority in Church; and I suppose that is why it is not by coincidence that the arrangement is first offered before its application.

       The divine arrangement:

       "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."
        (I Cor. 11:3)

       "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."
        (Eph. 5:23)

Okay, let's take a closer look at those scriptures while cosidering the various ramifications.  1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Corinthians 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. My persuasion that these scriptures are talking about a man-wife relationship is very glaring from verse 35 of 1 corinthians 14. It is evident that what Paul had in mind is a woman speaking in Church on the behalf of the family. A woman is under her husband's authority and she can only usurp her husband's authority and not any other male. For instance, if a woman other than my wife speaks in church, how will she be usurping my authority when I have no authority over her?

It is only my wife who can usurp my authority if a situation that concerns my family needs to be addressed and she stands up to speak without my giving her the permission to.

In the case of the Church as a separate entity from the family, Christ is the Head of that body and the sole autority over it. No member can usurp authority over another member because we are all under Christ's authority and not under each other's authority. Saying otherwise is to claim a pyramid of authority withing the body of Christ that looks like this: Christ ----- Male ----- Female. Isn't that a violation of the scipture that says there is neither male nor female in Christ? The only time gender is considered as basis for establishing authority is in regard to marriage, extending it to the church is preaching spiritual sexual inequality!

I'll get to your other submissions later. I have to run now.

sage:

@Thief il say its just one of those things that we are not in a position to change, something thats not in the hands of humans.
Its like you said about procreation. Irrespective of how we see it, its not in our Juridsdiction to change.

You admitted that from a human standpoint, the questions that i asked you might be seen as unfair. But since God has no injustice in his part and he designed it, what is a mere human supposed to do about it.

Sage, you are still avoiding my questions on why you think it's like that in the Bible and what YOU think of it, the whole "thou shouldnt judge" thing isnt important now but I see that you feel that by answering maybe you're speaking against His word, we have free will for a reason you know.

But fine I wont bother you about it anymore. Ciao

@TayoD,

TayoD:

You know I appreciate you as well. You provided a breathe of fresh air from those who read total female silence in church into the scripture.

Bless you more, bros. It is this very question of totally silencing women in Church that is of grave concern to me.

TayoD:

Okay, let's take a closer look at those scriptures while cosidering the various ramifications.  1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Corinthians 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. My persuasion that these scriptures are talking about a man-wife relationship is very glaring from verse 35 of 1 corinthians 14. It is evident that what Paul had in mind is a woman speaking in Church on the behalf of the family. A woman is under her husband's authority and she can only usurp her husband's authority and not any other male.

Let's clarify a few things. Could we honestly say that the gist of the apostle Paul's recommendations in I Cor. 14 are about domestic affairs at home between a man and his wife; and not rather as to the setting of divine economy between men and women in the Church? Which is it, really?

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.

So, what is the case of verse 35? Please note this: it said to ask the husbands at home if they wish to learn anything. It does not mean to teach the husbands; but to ask. However, that is in reference to vs. 34 which states that "they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law".

The elements mentioned in these verses should help shape our understanding here: "asking" questions may be in connection with raising objections. That is why vs. 34 says they are commanded - as also saith the Law. It does not mean at all that people cannot ask questions where matters are not clear to them; but to do so in a collective meeting of the saints gathered for worship and throw the meeting into something other than it was meant for would indeed be a violation of divine order.

The apostle (IMHO) was not calling for women to be mute in Church. Remember also that if a man was speaking in Church and did not know what he was saying, the same apostle recommended this: vs. 28 -- "let him keep silence in the church"! That should not surprise us, because in the same chapter the word is given that "God is not the author of confusion" (vs. 33); and in the churches of the saints, a precedence for orderliness according to God's Word is appealed to (vs. 34).


APPLICATION

The question may be asked: Is there any practical demonstration of this among the saints? I believe so.

Acts 18:25-26 -- "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. 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."

This couple (Aquila and Priscilla) were Paul's companions in ministry (Acts 18:18 ). Now while the Bible says clearly that Apollos was a man well-taught (instructed) in the way of the Lord, he was even so received by the couple who together expounded the way of God more perfectly unto him. Notice the woman also with her husband clearly did the expounding/exposition to Apollos in a joint manner - together.

Of course, women can teach (and even expound) the things of God (please all readers - that is my personal opinion!). Women indeed can be "teachers of good things" (Titus 2:3). However, what I Cor. 14:34 and I Tim. 2:12 are speaking about in terms of women being silent would rather be pointing to the following:

   (a) as explained earlier in my previous rejoinder, to not teach in the church[b]es[/b] is in terms of the Biblical understanding that they are not viewed as seeking to be "masters" among the saints (James 3:1).

   (b) that they should not usurp authority over the man is in context of the ministry in Church life; rather than to a domestic situation.

@TayoD,

TayoD:

For instance, if a woman other than my wife speaks in church, how will she be usurping my authority when I have no authority over her?

(a) It is not a matter of personal standing; rather, it is a concern for divine order. What God has given is that the man is the head of the woman (I Cor. 11:3).

(b) It also did not say "let your wives keep silent in the churches".

(c) "if a woman other than my wife speaks in church" would contradict this verse: "women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak" (vs. 34). It is not a question of if another woman speaks; the point is that a woman is not permitted to "speak" (that is, not permitted to be public speakers as teachers regarded in positions of "masters".

(d) "how will she be usurping my authority when I have no authority over her?" - the Bible recognizes that as long as you're a man, the divine precedent is that you are placed in such a position (I Cor. 11:3).

TayoD:

It is only my wife who can usurp my authority if a situation that concerns my family needs to be addressed and she stands up to speak without my giving her the permission to.

(a) a woman does not require an individual man's permission to speak or be silent. It is rather the God's command that settles the matter - "as also saith the Law".

(b) the chapter under review here is not a matter of "domestic affairs" (concerns of family needs). Rather, it is one of ministry in the Body as pointing to what Eph.4:12 says - "the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry".

TayoD:

In the case of the Church as a separate entity from the family, Christ is the Head of that body and the sole autority over it. No member can usurp authority over another member because we are all under Christ's authority and not under each other's authority.

True, we are all under the authority of the head - Christ (I Cor. 11:3; also Col. 1:18 ). However, the point is that we are asked to submit to the authority of leaders whom God has set in His Church (Heb. 13:17).

TayoD:

Saying otherwise is to claim a pyramid of authority withing the body of Christ that looks like this: Christ ----- Male ----- Female. Isn't that a violation of the scipture that says there is neither male nor female in Christ? The only time gender is considered as basis for establishing authority is in regard to marriage, extending it to the church is preaching spiritual sexual inequality!

(a) The question of "neither male nor female" in Christ is pointing to salvation; and it speaks to our being the children of God by faith in Christ (Gal. 3:26-28 ). It is not a question there of relationships between one another or of service.

(b) Marriage is not the only time the gender issue comes up in view of authority. Please read again I Cor. 11:3 - "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man". Whether one was married or not, that truth holds true for every male and female in the Body of Christ (including those unmarried in chapter 7).

TayoD:

I'll get to your other submissions later. I have to run now.

Bros, me sef busy for office. . . I just dey take this one relax (Monday is usually stressful for some of us)!!

@ Stimulus,

I was about to post, when I saw your latest rejoinders. Pray tell, what exacltly is your position? I'm finding it very hard to discern.

I'd appreciate your outlining it in a few clear and concise sentences, otherwise my rejoinder may be mis-directed and mis-understood.

Thanks
TV

why not?

Hi TV01,

TV01:

I was about to post, when I saw your latest rejoinders. Pray tell, what exacltly is your position? I'm finding it very hard to discern.

Well, I'll try and articulate them shortly.

TV01:

I'd appreciate your outlining it in a few clear and concise sentences, otherwise my rejoinder may be mis-directed and mis-understood.

I hope I won't compund issues all the more; so here's an attempt to outline my position:


1. My recent entry to this discussion was informed by the originator's refined poser:

shinystar:

The point is can you submit to the spiritual authority of a female leader? Let's keep chatting.

2. Thereupon, I offered this:

stimulus:

Perhaps it might be more helpful to appreciate the roles played by women in the Church; rather than just simply relegating them to a black hole mentality as if they were meant to exist and never be heard.

What roles do women play in Church? Women may not have been among the priesthood of the OT; but they are undeniably included in the priesthood of all Christian believers in the NT (I Pet. 2:5 & 9).

- - -
I believe there are answers for some of the questions many of us are asking; but more than that, we might as well be concerned with whether or not we have been asking the right kinds of questions.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.96.html#msg1248945

Following that, I have been trying to say these few things:

(a) women do have leadership roles in the Body of Christ (I've tried to offer a few)

(b) the scope of such leadership roles are defined by two things:
     i. women are asked to not teach in the church[b]es[/b]
     ii. they are not to usurp authority over the men

(c) leadership in the Body of Christ is not exclusively reserved to men

(d) leadership in the Body of Christ is a partnership where men and women are called
     and spiritually equipped together for whatever roles they fulfill

(e) men and women are together priests in the NT; and the NT worship is not a continuum of the OT
      worship mode.

Perhaps a few more will come to my memory; but would these be of any help?

Regards.

@ Stimulus,

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.

stimulus:

Following that, I have been trying to say these few things:

(a) women do have leadership roles in the Body of Christ (I've tried to offer a few)

(b) the scope of such leadership roles are defined by two things:
i. women are asked to not teach in the church[b]es[/b]
ii. they are not to usurp authority over the men

(c) leadership in the Body of Christ is not exclusively reserved to men

(d) leadership in the Body of Christ is a partnership where men and women are called
and spiritually equipped together for whatever roles they fulfill

(e) men and women are together priests in the NT; and the NT worship is not a continuum of the OT
worship mode.

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

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. All can minister, all can serve, but not all can lead. To say that women have "leadership roles" is to essentially say nothing in regards to the specific question posed in this thread.

Perhaps specifics would help.

God bless
TV

Korah was a well respected Rubenite in Israel and a chieftain who felt that Moses (a Levite) was just misinterpreting the will of God to create a class system. Korah genuinely felt that a just and righteous God would in no way propagate a class system in which only a certain group of people could lead other people in worship to Him. 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. He tried to take on a leadership position in the worship of God and he felt he was doing God’s will. He had lots of people who supported him but God executed Korah as well as anybody who shared his idea that anybody could assume a leading role when it came to presiding over true worship.

For Moses to say that it was only his tribe that was allowed to lead others in worship sounded presumptuous, irrational and discriminatory from a human standpoint (ironically Moses may never had known why God selected only his tribe).

But the point was that it was a divine arraignment for pure worship and had to be respected. God destroyed Korah and any other person that felt that the will of God was that anybody who worshiped him could assume a leadership position

Uzzah was a God Fearing man who was among those bringing the Ark back to Jerusalem. When the horses carrying the ark almost tumbled the ark to the ground, he tried to save the ark from falling off. God executed him for that. From a human view point this was harsh and might even look unjust. King David was very unhappy about that and so were the Israelites.
But that he wanted to save the ark was not the point. 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.