@ Stimulus,

I said this;

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.

This was in response to TayoD' specific concern about "every man being seen as the head of every woman". Certainly related, but not in direct response to the main question of overall leadership in the church. Please read me carefully here. I am not saying that every (universally) position of trust/reaponsibility/authority or leadership in church has to be by men, only the overall (eldership), which is scripturally limited to men.

Which in no way contradicts (but is to be read in conjunction) with the following;

1.

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.

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

So even if a woman has a role or ministry in the church, she would in some way still be subject to her husband/fathers/eldest male relative's authority. To say otherwise would leave a gap in my reasoning on this whole issue. If my position is bettered from scripture, that's one thing, for it to fall down through inconsistency is another.

My stance in contrast to TayoD', is order and authority emanate out of the family and are not inverted or done away with once we step into a church setting, but rather maintained and expanded on.

So there is/should be male covering at all times, but it is not every male that covers. Comprende?

You said;

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.

Again, and as with TayoD, we differ on this point. I don't see order in the church as over turning or voiding order in the home. I see a perfect flow from one to the other. A harmony. So far, other positions suggest dissonance between home and church.

No it's not a joint exercise or a partnership in gender terms. It's a responsibility assigned to men. and for men to relinquish that is to enter in to "Ahab" territory. Enuff said.

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).

Miriam ~  did not shepherd Israel alongside Moses (and Aaron), as she was not called or commissioned with them. Please read the Genesis account a little more carefully.

Deborah ~ Please keep reading on to Judges chapter 4. She offered judgement (sound and wise counsel) as a "mother in Israel". That can be done as I've outlined. People went to her to seek her Godly advise. She did not head or shepherd the nation. She reluctantly co-lead in battle, but pointedly proclaimed that it was not God's will. It removes the glory. Woman is man's glory and man is God's.

I have said that only in contingency situations are women to take the lead. I have repeated noted the proviso "mature, suitably qualified, available and willing males".

I hope you appreciate that I did'nt just dismiss Sisters Miriam and Deborah as abberations and your own whimsy  !

It's the same arguemts I hear all the time about "strong black women" leading homes. Sure they can lead homes, sure they are strong, but is that the ideal? Is that God's preferred way??

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

So pray tell, what authority if any does the eldership have? And can women be elders??

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.

No, it's not trying to limit, it's following the scriptural outline. The limit thing is for you to take up with the Author.

I never said it was not permissable for men, or more fitting for women. I said it was allowed for women (although possibly in some instances preferred, empathy and all that).

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.

Like I said, you are reading leadership into everything. Do two people co-lead one person? They were giving him deeper insight into Christian life and practice. It was counsel. It was not public. In fact if it had been Priscilla alone (without her husband), I would think nothing of it. It's akin to the Deborah role (I'm so tidy  !).

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)?

Please don't weary me, I have answered this severally.

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.

Women in overall leadership be that in the home or church is not ideal or scriptural. But can it be done? yes. Can men or women run/lead home/church in the adsence of the other? yes. Is it ideal?
the way it was designed? No. Give God Glory!

God bless
TV

@Stimulus


The work of women in the body is always appreciated like i said b/4 and they have different gifts which they use in the ministry and in fufilling their commision of lauding the Christ

SO

Let us sum up this topic and make it concise and remove ambiguity

Given that authority over the Church is given to Elders appointed by Holy Spirit and it was/is their duty to Oversee, Preside over, Shephard, Lead, Teach, Issue directives, within the Church

1 Explain which of these roles you say a woman can take on and in what context within the Church and

2 How that relates with the principle of headship within the Church


and lets hold it against the light of Bible truth.

Besides

You will need to do this to clarify yourself


First Il like you make this issue clear.



1 Compare the roles of a Male Judge like Samuel to the role that a female judge like Deborah could play. (And include the role Miriam could play)

2 What role did/could women in the first century Church play within the Church?

@TV01

Looks like you have even answered the questions i wanted Stmulus to answer. I was typing this up, left my desk and came back later to post it b/4 i read your comments. .

@TV01,

I've tried to reason along the lines of your persuasion; but then you're still stating the same convoluted statements in other ways. I apologise where I might be reading you wrongly; but let me put out like this:

TV01:

This was in response to TayoD' specific concern about "every man being seen as the head of every woman". Certainly related, but not in direct response to the main question of overall leadership in the church. Please read me carefully here. I am not saying that every (universally) position of trust/reaponsibility/authority or leadership in church has to be by men, only the overall (eldership), which is scripturally limited to men.

In the first instance, I have not seen the idea of "overall leadership" expressed in the NT as pertaining to the life of the Church - that is something only Christ Himself holds.

Second, if you're "not saying that every position of authority or leadership has to be by men", what then have you been saying in the idea that leadership is exclusively ascribed to men? That you don't see "every" position of authority as ascribed by men - wouldn't that be saying that women are also in leadership and authority?

TV01:

So even if a woman has a role or ministry in the church, she would in some way still be subject to her husband/fathers/eldest male relative's authority. To say otherwise would leave a gap in my reasoning on this whole issue. If my position is bettered from scripture, that's one thing, for it to fall down through inconsistency is another.

Let me remind you of what I have argued earlier:

The scope of leadership by women in Church is defined by two things:

      (a) she is not permitted to teach in the Churches

      (b) she is not to usurp authority over the man

I believe we are coming round now seeing the very same thing I have been offering severally. But even so, the point is that she is called to leadership - which is the very thing that has been difficult for many to see. The only thing left now is to put to rest this new idea that "overall leadership" is exclusively to men - and that I will do sometime soon ( I hope by grace before end of the week).

TV01:

My stance in contrast to TayoD', is order and authority emanate out of the family and are not inverted or done away with once we step into a church setting, but rather maintained and expanded on.

Order and authority in the Body of Christ emanate from the Head (Christ) and not from a domestic setting. The setting of the home may help us understand some aspects of Church life; but it does not define the life of the Church.

Paul was not married - we know that (I Cor. 7:7). But he was called an apostle - not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:1). If we have to stretch this idea of authority emanating from the home, that would be outside Scripture indeed; and we would have to wonder what domestic or family "qualifications" Paul had in order to hold apostolic authority.

This is why I find that argument hardly a standard one.

TV01:

So there is/should be male covering at all times, but it is not every male that covers.[/color]

"Male covering at all times" is saying the same thing as that leadership is an exclusive men-only phenomenon.

TV01:

Again, and as with TayoD, we differ on this point. I don't see order in the church as over turning or voiding order in the home. I see a perfect flow from one to the other. A harmony. So far, other positions suggest dissonance between home and church.

I did not insinuate that order in the church overturns or voids that in the home. The one thing I said was that the setting in the home helps us to understand some aspect of Church life; but the home setting does not define Church life. I have demonstrated the point above.

TV01:

No it's not a joint exercise or a partnership in gender terms. It's a responsibility assigned to men. and for men to relinquish that is to enter in to "Ahab" territory. Enuff said.

That is why Micah 6:4 continues to be denied by those who ask for a men-only leadership in Church. What was Miriam doing in that verse if it was not a joint exercise? Meanwhile, please note that it was God Himself who stated that He sent them: "I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam."

TV01:

Miriam ~  did not shepherd Israel alongside Moses (and Aaron), as she was not called or commissioned with them. Please read the Genesis account a little more carefully.

The event was not recorded in Genesis; and Micah 6:4 was God saying that He sent Miriam alongside Moses and Aaron! Are you hastily trying to deny this clear statement because you have no desire to see things yourself?

Where in Genesis is the event you want me to read?

TV01:

Deborah ~ Please keep reading on to Judges chapter 4. She offered judgement (sound and wise counsel) as a "mother in Israel". That can be done as I've outlined. People went to her to seek her Godly advise. She did not head or shepherd the nation. She reluctantly co-lead in battle, but pointedly proclaimed that it was not God's will. It removes the glory. Woman is man's glory and man is God's.

This is an argument from mere assumption and not what is stated in the Bible. First, my quote was from Judges chapter 4; and it was not merely "advise" that people came to seek her for. Other women could have given advise to others - Nabal's wife was such an example who indeed gave 'advice' to David: "the name of the man was Nabal; and the name of his wife Abigail: and s[b]he was a woman of good understanding[/b]". . . And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me: And blessed be thy advice, (I Sam. 25:3, 32-33); but this did not qualify her as being in the same position as Deborah the prophetess.

In the case of Deborah the prophetess (Judg. 4:4-5), it was a clear case presented to us as I have severally stated: "And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment."

It was not merely "advice" she offered - she was judging the entire nation!

Now, the reluctance you're interjecting into this declarative is another mechanical devise to deny the obvious. She did not "reluctantly" go with Barak - for this was what she said:

   "I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh." (vs. 9).

Now notice the power of this woman's word: it was not an advice, but a powerful prophetic word she gave! The effect was this: "And the hand of the children of Israel prospered, and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan." (vs. 24).

Your arguments cannot be sustained in the face of open declarations in God's Word. Deborah clearly prophesied (not "advised"; and the Word of the LORD in her mouth was felt in the entire nation - shaping the destiny at a decisive moment in their history!

TV01:

I have said that only in contingency situations are women to take the lead. I have repeated noted the proviso "mature, suitably qualified, available and willing males".

My dear TV01, contingency or not, the one thing that decides divine commission is not human ability; rather, it is a divine calling. Deborah was not a woman of natural ability to assume the role of "prophetess" over an entire nation - for GOD Himself called her to that service; and that is enough to have decided the destiny of that nation.

TV01:

I hope you appreciate that I did'nt just dismiss Sisters Miriam and Deborah as abberations and your own whimsy  !

No brother; I appreciate the challenges offered to make me go back repeatedly to check out my own ideas and see if they actually derive from the Word.  

TV01:

It's the same arguemts I hear all the time about "strong black women" leading homes. Sure they can lead homes, sure they are strong, but is that the ideal? Is that God's preferred way??

I am not basing my persuasions on what people do or prefer. For now, I want to simply deal with the Scriptural precedence before offering practical applications to what points could be delineated. Like I said earlier: my points are not about theorizing - it will simply not do to stop there.

TV01:

So pray tell, what authority if any does the eldership have? And can women be elders??

Yes, women can serve as elders (be patient with me until I show you how); and authority comes from the Head of the Body.

TV01:

No, it's not trying to limit, it's following the scriptural outline. The limit thing is for you to take up with the Author.

I don't see the 'Author' limiting anything - that was your idea and that is what I have dealt with. Surely you cannot assume to be taking His place; and I don't see why you have even ventured that line.

TV01:

I never said it was not permissable for men, or more fitting for women. I said it was allowed for women (although possibly in some instances preferred, empathy and all that).

That is why I still call again and again that we should not be polarized, but seek to be balanced in our views.

TV01:

Like I said, you are reading leadership into everything. Do two people co-lead one person? They were giving him deeper insight into Christian life and practice. It was counsel. It was not public. In fact if it had been Priscilla alone (without her husband), I would think nothing of it. It's akin to the Deborah role (I'm so tidy  !).

My dear TV01, please look deeply into what is written, not what you want to think of it. I do not read leadership into "everything"; if that were the case, why then would I have tried to offer an alternative point to the idea you have put forth as that authority flows from the home to the Church? It doesn't help reading me that way.

The question of two people co-leading one person is another thing that suggests to me that you seem not to understand leadership at all. More than "counsel", that couple in Acts 18:26 were "expounding the way of God more perfectly" to Apollos (in vs. 25, we read that "this man was instructed in the way of the Lord" already). What they did was more than counselling; for leadership entails what they did - they expounded the way of God more perfectly!

TV01:

Please don't weary me, I have answered this severally.

You hurriedly circumvented issues - not "answered" them. And if you have no answers, try not wearying me either.

TV01:

Women in overall leadership be that in the home or church is not ideal or scriptural. But can it be done? yes. Can men or women run/lead home/church in the adsence of the other? yes. Is it ideal?
the way it was designed? No. Give God Glory!

'Give God glory', son. . . I am not a Pharisee making pretentious statements. And I hope that you can see that my answers have clearly demonstrated how you mix up issues? I would be enthused with your offer for the Genesis account of Miriam and Moses; and in that example, I wonder why it is ever so difficult for you to calmly reason with people.

@sage,

sage:

First Il like you make this issue clear.

1 Compare the roles of a Male Judge like Samuel to the role that a female judge like Deborah could play. (And include the role Miriam could play)

2 What role did/could women in the first century Church play within the Church?

Perhaps you would like to comment on the examples I already have offered earlier? This again is where I reminded you that a few have been offered already:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.160.html#msg1259802

In addition to that, please I want you to read my rejoinder to TV01 just above; especially the case he offered for Miriam and Deborah, and my views in that respect. I don't understand how we want to quickly dismiss issues without carefully checking them from Scripture before returning to post assertions in denial.

I am waiting for the Miriam, Moses and Aaron record in Genesis, where he asked me to go read them "carefully". Also, I am waiting to see how Deborah was only giving "advice" or "counsel" instead of what Scriprure declares - she was judging the nation! Why is it so difficult for us to simply reason together and see issues straight from Scripture?

sage:

Given that authority over the Church is given to Elders appointed by Holy Spirit and it was/is their duty to Oversee, Preside over, Shephard, Lead, Teach, Issue directives, within the Church

1 Explain which of these roles you say a woman can take on and in what context within the Church and

2 How that relates with the principle of headship within the Church

Again, please go through those already offered in my several rejoinders.

I think I've tried to hold this far in answering questions. Would it be too much for me to relax and suspend answers henceforth and begin asking critical questions as well? The repostes I've been reading from you guys seem to inidcate to me that you might not have been reading my rejoinders carefully enough before asking the same questions repeatedly in different verbiage.

Regards.

yeeeeeeeeeeeees!

You guys have turned this thread into a Bible exposition.
I no sabi read volumes o.
please consider people like us

What's the hoopla?

YES ,I would.

Hi guys,

Me, I no sabi book reach this level (as babyosisi hinted), Lol. But one thing I can appreciate is the depth of insight that has blessed me from stimulus' posts. The fresh understanding of looking at this subject, especially his efforts to "balance" his views, and then go beyond theorizing to offer practical examples - all these have added to my understanding.

Now, I can confidently say that yes, women are called to leadership roles in the Body of Christ. 

Also, the questions that have been asked are helpful. Without them, perhaps, I might not have understood that Miriam was called alongside Moses and Aaron (Mic. 6:4); and the example of Deborah as judging the entire nation of Israel. You guys have really helped me - well done.

@Stimulus,

You wrote;
In the first instance, I have not seen the idea of "overall leadership" expressed in the NT as pertaining to the life of the Church - that is something only Christ Himself holds.

My response;
Eldership is overall leadership
There is a deaconate and an Eldership. The Eldership has overall responsibility/authority (with regard to the Headship of the Lord)

You wrote;
Second, if you're "not saying that every position of authority or leadership has to be by men", what then have you been saying in the idea that leadership is exclusively ascribed to men? That you don't see "every" position of authority as ascribed by men - wouldn't that be saying that women are also in leadership and authority?

My response;
If the bible says older (more mature) women should teach younger ones, is that not in
A sense a form of leadership, does it not suggest at least in that forum, there is authority?
So it can’t be too difficult to see the difference between overall leadership (by male elders) and possible subsidiary roles by others, male or female? Not every, but overall.

You wrote
Let me remind you of what I have argued earlier:

The scope of leadership by women in Church is defined by two things:

       (a) she is not permitted to teach in the Churches

       (b) she is not to usurp authority over the man

My response;
(a)If she is not allowed to teach the whole fellowship, is she allowed to teach in a smaller specific gathering, or at all?
(b)Please explain what constitutes usurping authority over a man/the men, if she is allowed to lead with them, if she is a partner and an equal in authority? You can only usurp one in  higher authority.

You wrote;
I believe we are coming round now seeing the very same thing I have been offering severally. But even so, the point is that she is called to leadership - which is the very thing that has been difficult for many to see. The only thing left now is to put to rest this new idea that "overall leadership" is exclusively to men - and that I will do sometime soon ( I hope by grace before end of the week).

My response;
Not overall, and certainly not eldership, but I await your post.

You wrote;
Order and authority in the Body of Christ emanate from the Head (Christ) and not from a domestic setting. The setting of the home may help us understand some aspects of Church life; but it does not define the life of the Church.

My response;
If I state something that plainly cannot be right or does not make obviously sense, please don’t put on your sporting kit and run with it  .

Could I be saying that Authority stems from the home? Of course I am not. What I mean in context is that the authority that is instituted in the home by God in Christ, is not subject to, subsumed or voided by that instituted in the church, by the same Lord. Clear?

Further church life does not define home life or rule.

You wrote;
Paul was not married - we know that (I Cor. 7:7). But he was called an apostle - not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:1). If we have to stretch this idea of authority emanating from the home, that would be outside Scripture indeed; and we would have to wonder what domestic or family "qualifications" Paul had in order to hold apostolic authority.

My response;
Does what you wrote even make sense to you? Even in light of your misreading me earlier? Does it sound like I could be suggesting that Paul’s calling/qualification as an apostle was predicted on his being married? Or having an ordered family life?

You wrote;
"Male covering at all times" is saying the same thing as that leadership is an exclusive men-only phenomenon.

My response;
If you want to read it that way, fine. But my extrapolation thus far has made it very clear that
1. Overall authority resides with men
2. Being under authority does not mean you are not a leader or cannot lead ~ afterall, the men that lead are under Christ’ authority and The Son is under The Fathers.

You wrote;
I did not insinuate that order in the church overturns or voids that in the home. The one thing I said was that the setting in the home helps us to understand some aspect of Church life; but the home setting does not define Church life. I have demonstrated the point above.

My response;
And my consistently maintained  position is that church order does not impinge on or overturn or void home order. There is harmony.

Say a man has a wife who is more zealous, more involved, mature, active, Godly and any other quality or qualification you care to consider. And let’s say, in your book she qualifies for eldership, and you make her an elder, pray tell, in the home who has authority? And in the church who has authority over whom between the two?

I will review the OT references and possibly post. For now I will say this. There is no pattern of male/female leadership in the OT, that is not to say that women did not fully participate, just not as leaders in the normal course of things. Second trying to invent a whole new paradigm and ignore the clear scriptural leaning towards men in OT leadership just because of a few odd instances of prominent women is force-fitting. Kings, Priest, Prophets were always male.

As is clear from scripture, and I have consistently maintained OT shadows are not to be overlaid wholesale onto NT Christians. The NT contains more than enough detail on which to base Christian Church structure and that restricts eldership to males. Apart from stretched references to Junia and Priscilla, where is there female leadership (overall) in the NT narrative? Even the deacons where exclusively male.

But if you can show it please do so.

God bless
TV

Emphatic NO!
have we forgotten how Eve hoodwinked Adam into eating the fruit of the forbideen tree?
If a woman leads a church the devil will posess her to lead the congregation astray cos
they are the devils tool kit.

women forgive me, the bitter truth must be told.

@TV01,

I'm going to try and be very quick on this one.

TV01:

Eldership is overall leadership
There is a deaconate and an Eldership. The Eldership has overall responsibility/authority (with regard to the Headship of the Lord)

I haven't seen it so taught in the Word; and that which I see is that the so-called "overall leadership" (if at all an overall) is Christ's alone. Leadership in the Body is a joint exercise: not just to state it, but to demonstrate it - and that I have done for the most part.

TV01:

If the bible says older (more mature) women should teach younger ones, is that not in
A sense a form of leadership, does it not suggest at least in that forum, there is authority?
So it can’t be too difficult to see the difference between overall leadership (by male elders) and possible subsidiary roles by others, male or female? Not every, but overall.

I don't want to misread you; but you're not making any issues clearer. The one thing that informed my entering this debate is the fact that many people see leadership in Church as exclusively a men-only exercise; and that is what I have tried to challenge by offering Biblical texts to the point in my persuasions that it is rather a joint exercise.

The idea that men have the "overall leadership" is simply rejecting the Biblical premise that women are called alongside to offer leadership in various capacities in the Body of Christ. The 'overall leadership' is Christ's alone; and that is why I have asked that we constantly recognize the fact that no one presides over the worship of NT believers in as much as we are all priests!! In this regard, I offered a distinction between worship and leadership; and then tried as well to bring us round the point of understanding the practical examples of leadership exercised by women.

TV01:

(a)If she is not allowed to teach the whole fellowship, is she allowed to teach in a smaller specific gathering, or at all?

Titus 2:3 - Are women said to be teachers of good things?

TV01:

(b)Please explain what constitutes usurping authority over a man/the men, if she is allowed to lead with them, if she is a partner and an equal in authority? You can only usurp one in  higher authority.

If you go back to where I offered an explanation for the contextual understanding of what usurping authority indicates in line with not being "masters" as James 3:1 teaches, you'd see my point. TayoD had offered the question earlier to me as to whether "teaching" is the only way a woman could usurp authority, and my answer was NO - with an attempt as well to explain just what it points to.

TV01:

Not overall, and certainly not eldership, but I await your post.

Please bear in mind that "overall leadership" is exercised by none other than Christ.

TV01:

If I state something that plainly cannot be right or does not make obviously sense, please don’t put on your sporting kit and run with it  .

I wasn't being forward at all; but I reckon that if I don't began to call you guys early enough to such ideas, you would continue to make runaway guesses.

TV01:

Could I be saying that Authority stems from the home? Of course I am not.

In other words, your earlier statement was wrong then about authority emanating from the family? This was your statement:

TV01:

My stance in contrast to TayoD', is order and authority emanate out of the family and are not inverted or done away with once we step into a church setting, but rather maintained and expanded on.

How do you make a statement and then come back contradicting it?

TV01:

What I mean in context is that the authority that is instituted in the home by God in Christ, is not subject to, subsumed or voided by that instituted in the church, by the same Lord. Clear?

And what was so difficult in what I offered earlier than that? I had said, the home setting may help us understand some aspects of Church life, but the home setting does not define Church life. You simply do not try to define authority in the Church as emanating/stemming from the home - and that was the reason why I used the example of Paul in Gal. 1:1.

TV01:

Further church life does not define home life or rule.

Did I anywhere suggest that it did?

TV01:

Does what you wrote even make sense to you? Even in light of your misreading me earlier? Does it sound like I could be suggesting that Paul’s calling/qualification as an apostle was predicted on his being married? Or having an ordered family life?

Don't make me laugh. Did your own ideas make sense to you afterall when you saw authority "emanating" or "stemming" from the family into Church life? You didn't make any sense there - and that is why I had to bring you round this point.

TV01:

If you want to read it that way, fine. But my extrapolation thus far has made it very clear that
1. Overall authority resides with men

Which is what I have clearly flawed by pointing out that "overall leadership" (which now you have come to assign as "overall authority" soley belongs to the Head - CHRIST!

TV01:

2. Being under authority does not mean you are not a leader or cannot lead ~ afterall, the men that lead are under Christ’ authority and The Son is under The Fathers.

So, if being under authority does not mean you are not a leader, my question is: can a woman be a LEADER?

@TV01,

TV01:

And my consistently maintained position is that church order does not impinge on or overturn or void home order. There is harmony.

Oga TV01, what is the difference between "harmony" and "balance"? HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I BEEN CALLING FOR BALANCE, before you guys came repeating your questions endlessly in order to promote what you have not been able to defend from Scripture?

No, you have not been able to defend your persuasions soundly from Scripture. I am waiting for the Miriam, Moses and Aaron event in Genesis where you asked me to go read it carefully - just a reminder! That is why I keep on asking: do you guys take the time to go through posts before you post assertions in denial at all?

TV01:

Say a man has a wife who is more zealous, more involved, mature, active, Godly and any other quality or qualification you care to consider. And let’s say, in your book she qualifies for eldership, and you make her an elder, pray tell, in the home who has authority? And in the church who has authority over whom between the two?

Good question - and I applaud that, even though I may offer that the answer is given already in my previous rejoinder. Let me say it another way:

(a) Using the example of Deborah the prophetess, under who's authority would she be judging the entire nation of Israel - her husband's or God's authority? My answer is that she would be acting under God's authority rather than her husband's authority.

(b) The reason for the above is simple enough for me:

i. As prophetess is was called by God to the position of a leader over an entire nation

ii. As wife, she could attend upon domestic affairs as suited to her family.

I don't try to mix up the two.

When Deborah the prophetess gave the prophetic word from the LORD, she was acting in the capacity of a leader over the entire nation (including men and women) - the result of which the Bible states: "the hand of the children of Israel prospered, and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan" (Judg. 4:24).

This was a decisive moment in the existence of the entire nation; and I don't read there that she was prophesying just to the women of Israel. The clause "the children of Israel" verily includes both men and women ("the children of Israel came up to her for judgment" - vs. 5; . . ."she judged Israel at that time" - vs. 4)

The one thing constantly before me is this: gifting and calling are from God; and He also gives the authority for leadership in service. The emphasis on "overall leadership/authority" ascribed to men is a flat disregard for the true source of authority in the Body - the Lord Himself.

TV01:

I will review the OT references and possibly post. For now I will say this. There is no pattern of male/female leadership in the OT, that is not to say that women did not fully participate, just not as leaders in the normal course of things.

There are several examples - and I have offered one for you to digest. The one question I will ask you here is this: Was Deborah leader over the nation of Israel or not?

TV01:

Second trying to invent a whole new paradigm and ignore the clear scriptural leaning towards men in OT leadership just because of a few odd instances of prominent women is force-fitting. Kings, Priest, Prophets were always male.

You must be reading off-key again. You can ask sage - I did not in one instance state that women were part of the priesthood; so this idea of force-fitting anything has no bearing in my posts at all. Here, let me remind you again:

I have stated these already:

(a) In the OT, only men were called to be priests

(b) In the NT, both men and women are called to be priests together

(c) the NT worship is not a continuum of the OT worship

(d) worship is not to be confused for leadership

(e) because we are all priests as far as worship is concerned in the NT, NO MAN presides over the worship of NT believers (that is the prerogative of Christ alone)

(f) when it comes to leadership in the Body of Christ, there is a balance - and such leadership is a joint exercise by both men and women rather than exclusively for men!!

TV01:

As is clear from scripture, and I have consistently maintained OT shadows are not to be overlaid wholesale onto NT Christians. The NT contains more than enough detail on which to base Christian Church structure and that restricts eldership to males. Apart from stretched references to Junia and Priscilla, where is there female leadership (overall) in the NT narrative? Even the deacons where exclusively male.

If you can simply bring me one verse in the NT where OVERALL LEADRSHIP/AUTHORITY is ascribed to MEN, then perhaps I might again wlak you through the fact that NO MAN has OVERALL LEADERSHIP in the Body of Christ except[b] the LORD JESUS alone[/b]!!

Regards.

@doski,

doski:

Emphatic NO!
have we forgotten how Eve hoodwinked Adam into eating the fruit of the forbideen tree?
If a woman leads a church the devil will posess her to lead the congregation astray because
they are the devils tool kit.

Okay, listen up. It was actually a man who betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver (and with a kiss). Eve led her husband; Judas betrayed Jesus.

In the course of Church history, none has been as serious as the case of a man (Judas) who was actually possessed by Satan himself to dastardly betray Jesus.

The point is that you don't argue that women are the devils tool kit and call that "the bitter truth" that must be told. We should rather be trying to see and appreciate the roles of women as joint heirs with men in the Body of Christ.

I Cor. 11:11 -- "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

Cheers.

@ Stimulus,

First, I have repeatedly said, that eldership (overall leadership), in the church amongst brethren is by males (plural), under lien from Christ.

You pushing for gender balance, partnership (i.e. equality at all levels of authority) and trying to equate it with my church/home harmony (the flow of God given authority between home and church) is either a misreading or simply disingenuous.

There are clearly defined roles for both genders. All women and men are under authority, albeit it is normal for all women to be under male authority of some sort. Overall leadership in the church (eldership is the preserve of men, with regard to my first paragraph above).

Only a man can be a bishop/elder/shepherd/presbyter/pastor/overseer with oversight for the whole congregation/flock.

If a woman qualifies to be an elder, why can’t she teach?
If a woman qualifies to be amongst the plurality of elders, how can she usurp any that are men? You can only usurp from a higher authority.

That suggests the only usurping, could be of the Lord it also changes this;

Christ -> Man -> Woman to this,
Christ -> Man and/or Woman

You are pushing a “neither fish nor fowl” line of reasoning by suggesting or inferring (as TayoD has) that in the home it’s the husband as head, whilst in church leadership, all positions are open to all. Unless of course that’s not what you are saying, one can never be entirely sure.

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

First, I have repeatedly said, that eldership (overall leadership), in the church amongst brethren is by males (plural), under lien from Christ.

You pushing for gender balance, partnership (i.e. equality at all levels of authority) and trying to equate it with my church/home harmony (the flow of God given authority between home and church) is either a misreading or simply disingenuous

There are clearly defined roles for both genders. All women and men are under authority, albeit it is normal for all women to be under male authority of some sort. Overall leadership in the church (eldership is the preserve of men, with regard to my first paragraph above).

Okay, I hear. Point is, there is no such thing as "overall leadership/authority" given to men: that is the prerogative of Christ. Trying to qualify this with comical adjectives is not helping your argument.

TV01:

Only a man can be a bishop/elder/shepherd/presbyter/pastor/overseer with oversight for the whole congregation/flock.

Sorry, that should mean then that you simply don't get the message of Ephesians 4:16. Please go over and see where I explained the gifts of verse 11.

TV01:

If a woman qualifies to be an elder, why can’t she teach?

Titus 2:3 - "The aged women likewise, that they be . . . teachers of good things."

TV01:

If a woman qualifies to be amongst the plurality of elders, how can she usurp any that are men? You can only usurp from a higher authority.

A woman can fulfill her LEADERSHIP role in the Body of Christ without necessarily usurping authority over the man. That is why I have offered how this ties in with understanding James 3:1; and that is why I have constantly reminded us of the pivotal message of I Cor. 11:11 and Heb. 13:7.

TV01:

That suggests the only usurping, could be of the Lord it also changes this;

Christ -> Man -> Woman to this,
Christ -> Man and/or Woman

I Cor. 11:11 -

"Nevertheless

neither is the man without the woman,

neither the woman without the man,

in the Lord."

TV01:

You are pushing a “neither fish nor fowl” line of reasoning by suggesting or inferring (as TayoD has) that in the home it’s the husband as head, whilst in church leadership, all positions are open to all. Unless of course that’s not what you are saying, one can never be entirely sure.

Thank you again. The one thing I notice is that you guys have had nothing to say to the several examples I have offered already for my persuasions. Meanwhile, I'm not entirely sure if you're deliberately refusing to consider what I have posted and the points I have repeatedly made earlier.

@ Stimulus

In Exodus 3-4 (apologies for the earlier erroneous ref to Genesis), Moses was called and Aaron sent with him. Pray tell, was Miriam to be “like God” as Moses was? Was even Aaron equal in calling with Moses? The fact that Miriam played a prominent role did not mean she was commissioned with them.

I gave a new testament example of her wife and her husband. What has Deborah got to do with this? OT indicators are not binding on NT believers. And Deborah was not the leader of Israel. The judges were sent/appointed by God as deliverers. After the death of Joshua and the generations who witnessed his leadership, society had broken down and every man did what was right in his own sight.

Joshua 21:24 So the children of Israel departed from there at that time, every man to his tribe and family; they went out from there, every man to his inheritance. 25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

This was prior to the era of the judges, who were raised for deliverance.

Judges 2:7 So the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the Lord which He had done for Israel. 8 Now Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died when he was one hundred and ten years old. 9 And they buried him within the border of his inheritance at Timnath Heres, in the mountains of Ephraim, on the north side of Mount Gaash. 10 When all that generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who did not know the Lord nor the work which He had done for Israel. 11 Then the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served the Baals; 12 and they forsook the Lord God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt; and they followed other gods from among the gods of the people who were all around them, and they bowed down to them; and they provoked the Lord to anger. 13 They forsook the Lord and served Baal and the Ashtoreths. F6 14 And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel. So He delivered them into the hands of plunderers who despoiled them; and He sold them into the hands of their enemies all around, so that they could no longer stand before their enemies. 15 Wherever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them for calamity, as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn to them. And they were greatly distressed. 16 Nevertheless, the Lord raised up judges who delivered them out of the hand of those who plundered them. 17 Yet they would not listen to their judges, but they played the harlot with other gods, and bowed down to them. They turned quickly from the way in which their fathers walked, in obeying the commandments of the Lord; they did not do so. 18 And when the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed them and harassed them. 19 And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they reverted and behaved more corruptly than their fathers, by following other gods, to serve them and bow down to them. They did not cease from their own doings nor from their stubborn way. 20 Then the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel; and He said, "Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, 21 I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, 22 so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the Lord, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not." 23 Therefore the Lord left those nations, without driving them out immediately; nor did He deliver them into the hand of Joshua.

Here is Deborah’s introduction.

5 And she would sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. And the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

They came to her, that does not denote authority over them. They approached her for sound counsel, as an obviously Godly person.

Given the backdrop of a breakdown in civil society and religious structures at that time, why are you trying to use it to underpin a whole doctrine for Church life?

Listen, God is sovereign, would I answer back? He can gift, choose and use whomsoever he pleases. In this time of meltdown He did.

But why do you insist it is a template for NT Christians? Like I have repeatedly said if men repudiate their responsibility, should women just “siddon look”? Or is God bound/limited by irresponsible men?

In the whole of the OT and likewise the NT, there are each two hotly contested, highly debatable instances of women in leadership (not necessarily overall). On the basis of this you claim, gender neutrality in terms of authority and leadership (in the church at least) is the scriptural imperative?

And please, this

I Cor. 11:11 -

"Nevertheless

neither is the man without the woman,

neither the woman without the man,

in the Lord."

Is a follow on from 1 Cor 11:3, it speaks to the complimentary nature of the male and female in creational terms and the family/home setting. Not gender equality or neutrality and not primarily a congregational pointer.

God bless
TV

@Stimulus,

Please say how the following scripture allows for women to act as elders over the flock of God and as equals or in partnership with men;

1 Timothy 3:1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,* he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, F3 but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);

Or this

8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Or this

Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you--
6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop F2 must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.


God bless
TV

@TV01,

The verses you offered for qualifications for male leadership roles by no means nullify the complementary leadership roles for women according to Ephesians 4.

My point, I repeat, has been about:

(a) recognizing that women have leadership roles in the Body of Christ

(b) maintaining a balance by recognizing such leadership roles

(c) understanding leadership as a joint exercise where men and women partner together.

The one problem that you have to deal with is the idea you bring up as to "overall leadership/authority" being ascribed exclusively to men - and that idea is not even suggested by the verses you offered.

As for balance, let me offer you again something out of Titus from which book you quoted:

(a) male leadership offered in Titus 1:9 -
'holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able,
by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.'

(b) female leadership offered in Titus 2:3 -
'The aged women likewise, that they be . . .teachers of good things"

Just that one example for now.

Question: Do men teach? Yes they do.

Do women teach as well? Yes they do.

The issue (as has been repeatedly stated) is that the scope of leadership exercised by women is defined by two things:

i. she is not permitted to "teach" (in which a study of the word there is simply that she is not to assume to be "master" - James 3:1) in the church[b]es[/b];

ii. she is not to usurp authority over the man (not to be "masters" over men).

But is that saying she is not to teach at all? NO.

Is that also saying she has no leadership role? NO.

In Titus, both men and women are presented to us in their various leadership capacities. The problem for ages has been that people who see a men-only type of leadership in the Body of Christ have been reading only Titus 1. They need to go beyond that and read also Titus 2!!

That is why again I offer I Cor. 11:11, because one cannot speak about balance or harmony if leadership for them starts and ends in Titus 1 as if Titus 2 never existed in the Bible!

Lastly, two things must be commented on again:

(a) the verses you quoted do not place the so-called "overall leadership" in the hands of men - that is the prerogative of the Head of the Body, Christ Himself.

(b) leadership in the Body of Christ is a joint exercise managed by both men and women; for it is not an exclusive exercise ascribed to men.

The balance of leadership in the Body of Christ is then highlighted in Hebrews 13:7 -

Remember ^(A)them which have the rule over you,
^(B)[/b]who have [b]spoken unto you the word of God:
whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Could I then break this down in bits?

Two things are presented to us in Hebrews 13:7 -

(A) "Them which have the rule over the saints" - this is leadership in partnership

(B) "who have spoken unto you the word of God" - is it only men who speak the word of God to the saints?



Now, I hope you can understand why the idea of "overall leadership" is something that is hard to defend in Scripture - it is not taught the way many people have persuaded themselves to believe. If at all, it belongs solely to Christ.

One cannot overlook the fact of what I Cor. 11:11 offers: "the man is not without the woman; neither the woman without the man" - that does not at all supposrt the idea of exclusivity, and we ought to be looking at the balance that God's Word offers.

Remember the example of Titus from which book you quoted - leadership does not stop in chapter 1 of that book, but we must go on from there to see that women indeed can be teachers of good things in chapter 2!

There seems to be a consensus among us that women should take leadership roles. But the controversy is on how far should they be allowed to lead. Should they lead to the extent that they are the pastors and shepherds without superior authority? Or, should they be allowed to take posts considered less sensitive and feminine?

I suggest we devote our attention to this and get down to the issues. I also agree the length of our contributions should be minimal so that we don't bore some people. Thanks. Let us roll!

shinystar:

Should they lead to the extent that they are the pastors and shepherds without superior authority? Or, should they be allowed to take posts considered less sensitive and feminine?

Great. And I'd like to see what people refer to as less sensitive and feminine posts; as well what is superior authority.

Thanks.

@TV01,

Okay, now I have taken the time to carefully consider your persuasion on your previous submission; and here are my answers:

TV01:

In Exodus 3-4 (apologies for the earlier erroneous ref to Genesis), Moses was called and Aaron sent with him. Pray tell, was Miriam to be “like God” as Moses was? Was even Aaron equal in calling with Moses? The fact that Miriam played a prominent role did not mean she was commissioned with them.

One question: according to Micah 6:4, were Moses, Aaron and Miriam sent by God or not? The verse records God Himself stating that He did:

'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. "

TV01:

I gave a new testament example of her wife and her husband. What has Deborah got to do with this? OT indicators are not binding on NT believers. And Deborah was not the leader of Israel. The judges were sent/appointed by God as deliverers. After the death of Joshua and the generations who witnessed his leadership, society had broken down and every man did what was right in his own sight.

I've noted severally that NT worship is not a continuum of OT worship style. However, since most people assert the women were never called to be leaders right from the OT, I have constantly offered Deborah's example.

Judg. 4:4-5 -- A few things you would have to notice here:

(a) Deborah did not appoint herself

(b) she judged Israel (rather an idea of merely giving godly counsel)

(c) the whole nation came to her for judgement (a matter of national concerns)

To try and reduce this into something else is to close the Bible and argue merely from assumptions.

TV01:

Here is Deborah’s introduction.

5 And she would sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. And the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

They came to her, that does not denote authority over them. They approached her for sound counsel, as an obviously Godly person.

The introduction did not begin in verse 5, but rather from vs. 4 -- "And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time."


Authority of the Judges of Israel

If you argue that she had no authority over them, then you make it sound like she was doing what she felt was right in her own eyes. The Word says emphatically that she "judged Israel" - and if this is merely to "counsel" people, then it would mean that all the male judges were merely "offering counsel".

"Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them." (Judg. 2:16) So then, could it be that those judges who were raised by the LORD were merely offering counsel? And if they served also as deliverers, was it merely a matter of personal exercise without authority from the LORD who raised them up?

Wat about Othniel - was he merely a judge without authority? The Bible says pretty much the same thing about him as was said about Deborah: "And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel" (Jdg. 3:10). Was he merely giving "advice"??

What about Tola the son of Puah? He "judged Israel twenty and three years" (Jdg. 10:1-2). Was he also merely giving "advice"??

And what about the prophet Samuel -- "And Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpeh" (I Sam. 7:6)?? "Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life" (ch. 7:15) -- was he merely giving out "advice" all his life??

I don't see how Deborah's role could be reduced to merely someone giving "advice/counsel" if the male judges were recognized as having authority.

What is even more to the point is that those who were judges were actually acting in the capacity of RULERS, as can be inferred in Ruth 1:1 --

"Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled"

Again, in 2 Samuel 7:11 we read that it was God Himself who appointed the Judges OVER His people:

"And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel"

And the same thing is yet again emphasized or reiterated in I Chron. 17:6 --

"Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel,
whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?"

And what about the authority of the judges appointed over Israel? Were they acting on their own pressumptions, or rather according to God's providence? I believe 2 Chron. 19:6 gives us a glimpse of what exactly they might have done:

"And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man,
but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment."

I still don't understand why Deborah the prophetess who did the exact same thing would be regarded as any less than in that capacity - is it merely because she happens to be a WOMAN?? (please shinystar, could you please note this as well in answer to one of the questions you raised?).

TV01:

Given the backdrop of a breakdown in civil society and religious structures at that time, why are you trying to use it to underpin a whole doctrine for Church life?

I am not using it to underpin anything. The point is that many people who force the idea of a men-only world continue to miss the point and constantly fail to recognize the leadership roles of women among God's people - whether in the past, or even now in the Body of christ. I have tried now to detail some of the issues you have missed in [b]Deborah's case[/b], as well Miriam's being SENT together with Moses and Aaron!

TV01:

Listen, God is sovereign, would I answer back? He can gift, choose and use whomsoever he pleases. In this time of meltdown He did.

And He did so using both men and women, instead of only men. The testimony of the Church today is in huge crises; but we can still look into the Word and begin once again to appreciate what God has provided for each one of us.

TV01:

But why do you insist it is a template for NT Christians? Like I have repeatedly said if men repudiate their responsibility, should women just “siddon look”? Or is God bound/limited by irresponsible men?

God is bound/limited by nothing and no one. even if men do not repudiate their responsibility, He has offered to use women from the very beginning - but we have closed those chapters dealing specifically with such issues and remained with only a few that point to men as if they are the only ones spoken of in such roles.

TV01:

In the whole of the OT and likewise the NT, there are each two hotly contested, highly debatable instances of women in leadership (not necessarily overall). On the basis of this you claim, gender neutrality in terms of authority and leadership (in the church at least) is the scriptural imperative?

I repeat: I do not claim gender neutrality. balance - balance - balance - balance - balance. . . to the nth time!!

TV01:

Is a follow on from 1 Cor 11:3, it speaks to the complimentary nature of the male and female in creational terms and the family/home setting. Not gender equality or neutrality and not primarily a congregational pointer.

If you can show me that I Corinthians 11 is primarily concerned with HOME issues, you would have made a point. Otherwise, it's not even an argument you have raised there.

@ Stimulus


Your argument with Deborah and Miriam do not hold water at all. Neither does you your arguments with the apostle quoting Joel and the other New testament scriptures that you quoted also. You are trying to make it look like they played the same role with the Men who had authority and that somehow that now means that women can become Shephards in the Church. That idea does not come from the bible.
(This was part of the reason why i mentioned the example of Korah. Korah had no intentions of delibrately displeasing God, nor did he dispute the fact that God gave out spiritual instructions through Moses. But presumteous thinking when it came to leadership in spiritual matters and trying to assume a position he thought Moses was Hoarding and he thought he and other qualified men were also entitled to but were beign denied by a class promoting Moses was his pitfall) (It was the same trap Athaliah and Miriam [whom you keep mentioning] feel into and one who another prophetess like Miriam, Deborah, advoided by showing Godly subjection to divinely constituted authority

The reason why the Holy Spirit appointed only Men as Shephards in the first century was because of a devine precedent that preceeded the Law of Moses. It is a precedent that had been devinely instituted from Creation and Shows up time and again Before the law, Under the Old convenant and Under the New convenant as well.

Im working on a project now but il Come back and handle this issue in detail most likely this weekend

Y people dey turn bible upside down?


Gender no b d problem

@sage,

Glad to see your rejoinder; but let me make a few things clear to you once again:

sage:

Your argument with Deborah and Miriam do not hold water at all. Neither does you your arguments with the apostle quoting Joel and the other New testament scriptures that you quoted also. You are trying to make it look like they played the same role with the Men who had authority and that somehow that now means that women can become Shephards in the Church. That idea does not come from the bible.

What really does not come from the Bible is to try and twist the Scriptures to say what it does not say - which is what I find amazing in yours and TV01's. The reason is simply this: I've taken the time to explain in detail the meaning of the various roles each one fulfilled:

(a) Miriam was sent by the same God who sent Moses and Aaron - Micah 6:4

(b) Deborah judged the entire nation of Israel - Judg. 4:4-5

I'm asking a simple question here: if the men who judged the nation of Israel had authority to do so, why twist the Scriptures and make the case of Deborah simply "advice" when she did the exact same thing that the men did?

Those who judged Israel did so as rulers -- Ruth 1:1

Such judges/rulers were commanded by God to be over His people - 2 Sam. 7:11

Such judges were actually commanded by God to feed His people -- I Chron. 17:6

Mr sage, why twist the Word of God and make Deborah's case merely 'advice/counsel' when she did the exact same thing as the men who judged Israel? Is it simply because Deborah the prophetess was a WOMAN and nothing else?

And why would Miriam be otherwise than what we read in Scripture? Was Moses sent? Was Aaron sent? And did not that same verse say that Miriam was sent - Mic. 6:4??

Everyone each had a specific leadership role to fulfill; but bottomline here was that they were leaders OVER God's people!! You guys make me laugh with your men-only theory that is making it ever so hard to see the examples of these women. I can't even imagine how you want to see especially Deborah's role as simply one giving "advice"!!

sage:

(This was part of the reason why i mentioned the example of Korah. Korah had no intentions of delibrately displeasing God, nor did he dispute the fact that God gave out spiritual instructions through Moses. But presumteous thinking when it came to leadership in spiritual matters and trying to assume a position he thought Moses was Hoarding and he thought he and other qualified men were also entitled to but were beign denied by a class promoting Moses was his pitfall) (It was the same trap Athaliah and Miriam [whom you keep mentioning] feel into and one who another prophetess like Miriam, Deborah, advoided by showing Godly subjection to divinely constituted authority

Ol' boy, open your eyes and read well the issue here. Korah was not even a woman; and using that as an analogy to promote your men-only theory is weakening your premise. If Korah had been a woman, then you would have a point; but here you're mixing up issues as if Korah's rebellion was sufficient to argue againt Micah 6:4 or Deborah's leadership over the entire nation - or even yet that Korah's rebellion is the one thing that justifies your male ego barring women from leadership among God's people.

Please sage, present a stronger argument when you make a case against women leadership.

sage:

The reason why the Holy Spirit appointed only Men as Shephards in the first century was because of a devine precedent that preceeded the Law of Moses. It is a precedent that had been devinely instituted from Creation and Shows up time and again Before the law, Under the Old convenant and Under the New convenant as well.

Let me remind you of the case in creation: Eve was created as a helpmeet unto Adam; but please understand that when God created both Adam and Eve, He called them just one name: ADAM!!

"Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam,
in the day when they were created." -- Gen. 5:2

Now what happened when God set them over creation? Please notice that the dominion was not a man-only phenomenon:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth." -- Gen. 1:26

So, you can see that from the very beginning, leadership was a joint exercise -- God said that both the man and woman (whom He gave the single name ADAM) were to exercise leadership over the rest of creation -- "let THEM have dominion"; and not 'let him have dominion'!!

Can I ask you what the "THEM" in Gen. 1:26 points to - (a) only MEN, or (b) to both men and women??

I have said it again and again -- make una open una eyes and look for the balance in God's Word; not make excuses to circumvent the clear fact that the Bible includes women in leadership responsibilities alongside men in divine calling!

Now, when you see a men-only world for shepeherds in the NT, you fail to see the message of Ephesians 4!! Until you drop your male ego, bros. . . this is going to continue to elude you.

sage:

I'm working on a project now but il Come back and handle this issue in detail most likely this weekend

Okay. Take all the time - we all get busy between times. Blessings.

@ Stimulus;

I will respond to your rejoinders as soon as I am able, for now, note that Women only rule in the absence of capable willing men. Anything else suggests a breakdown, as was the case during the time of the judges. When women rule, things are grave.

After reviewing your post prior, I accept that Deborah judged Israel with all the authority of the other Judges, noting 2 things;

1. Like I have consitently maintained, OT paradigms are not templates for NT living.
2. The abberational nature of those times as I outlined them.

Isaiah 3

1 For behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, Takes away from Jerusalem and from Judah The stock and the store, The whole supply of bread and the whole supply of water; 2 The mighty man and the man of war, The judge and the prophet, And the diviner and the elder; 3 The captain of fifty and the honorable man, The counselor and the skillful artisan, And the expert enchanter. 4 "I will give children to be their princes, And babes shall rule over them. 5 The people will be oppressed, Every one by another and every one by his neighbor; The child will be insolent toward the elder, And the base toward the honorable." 6 When a man takes hold of his brother In the house of his father, saying, "You have clothing; You be our ruler, And let these ruins be under your power," F3 7 In that day he will protest, saying, "I cannot cure your ills, For in my house is neither food nor clothing; Do not make me a ruler of the people." 8 For Jerusalem stumbled, And Judah is fallen, Because their tongue and their doings Are against the Lord, To provoke the eyes of His glory. 9 The look on their countenance witnesses against them, And they declare their sin as Sodom; They do not hide it. Woe to their soul! For they have brought evil upon themselves. 10 "Say to the righteous that it shall be well with them, For they shall eat the fruit of their doings. 11 Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him, For the reward of his hands shall be given him. 12 As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths." 13 The Lord stands up to plead, And stands to judge the people. 14 The Lord will enter into judgment With the elders of His people And His princes: "For you have eaten up the vineyard; The plunder of the poor is in your houses. 15 What do you mean by crushing My people And grinding the faces of the poor?" Says the Lord God of hosts.

Back soon

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

I will respond to your rejoinders as soon as I am able, for now, note that Women only rule in the absence of capable willing men. Anything else suggests a breakdown, as was the case during the time of the judges. When women rule, things are grave.

I'm glad for one thing, though: you've come round acknowledging that women indeed rule.

However, to suggest that they did so only in the absence of capable willing men is to obfuscate and rather ignore the fact that God's appointment of rulers is not based on man's willingness to assume any leadership roles in God's economy. This reminds me of Rom. 9:16 -- "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

Second, please go over the texts I offered again and allign your thoughts with what exactly those verses teach - it is God who raised, commanded and appointed such judges by His own authority.

Third, if you're suggesting that women appointed by God OVER His people is a sign of breakdown, you have completely missed the gist of the examples God shows in His wisdom in raising women to be leaders. The judges were not all women - and the circumstances in which the men judged were just about the same when Deborah judged the entire nation in her time. To make a case that Deborah being rasied up suggest a breakdown is to suggest that the men were raised up as a sign of breakdown as well.

TV01:

After reviewing your post prior, I accept that Deborah judged Israel with all the authority of the other Judges, noting 2 things;

1. Like I have consitently maintained, OT paradigms are not templates for NT living.
2. The abberational nature of those times as I outlined them.

I'm glad you've come round acknowledging what was difficult for me to accept initially until God had mercy on me.

However, I have noted (1) above severally; but that is not by any means enough grounds to negate the fact that in both the OT and NT, God gave us examples of women He called to be leaders among God's people. The case I'm trying to make here is simply this:

    Leadership is neither exclusively for men nor exclusively for women.

Both are called in various capacities of leadership among God's people - and we shall see this as we move on in our discussions.


Now I have also examined carefully the case of Isaiah 3 well before now, especially verse 12:

TV01:

12 As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths."

Please note carefully what is going on here. The whole body of that argument does not suggest that God was refuting the fact that women were called to rule over His people - for He indeed commanded them to do so (2 Samuel 7:11)!! Deborah did not pressume to judge Israel because she felt qualified - but according to the verse just cited, she was part of those whom God Himself raised and commanded to rule and be over God's people.

Secondly, in Isaiah 3:12 remember that it was not the women in leadership that were being blamed to have led the people into error!! There are two reasons why I say this:

  (a) when Isaiah prophesied, no woman was taking such a leadership role among God's people; but the prophet used it sarcastically to show how much the people had reduced themselves to an all-time low ("Woe to their soul! For they have brought evil upon themselves" - vs. 9). It was the same sarcastic devise employed by another prophet  in Nahum 3:13 - "thy people in the midst of thee are women" - which does not suggest that the people there were only females, but rather weak-souled people!

Bros, it is just the same as what my boss called me this morning: "woman-wrapper"!! Of course, my boss did not mean to see me as a female with lipstick - he rather referred to me as a weak-souled man who would not venture into ******!! (okay, don't ask!  ).

  (b) actually, it was rather the men in leadership positions who were leading the people into error in Isaiah 3:14 & 15! This is clear in Jeremiah 5:31 - "The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?"

You see, bros. . . if anyone is using Isaiah 3 to justify a male-only world, my simple question is this: on the whole, who have been more responsible for leading God's people into despicable error - the men or the women?

I think we really need to carefully consider what Isaiah was saying and not just run off with the mention of "women" in that chapter.

Cheers.

@ Stimulus;


Back as promised

You wrote;
The verses you offered for qualifications for male leadership roles by no means nullify the complementary leadership roles for women according to Ephesians 4.

My point, I repeat, has been about:

     (a) recognizing that women have leadership roles in the Body of Christ

     (b) maintaining a balance by recognizing such leadership roles

     (c) understanding leadership as a joint exercise where men and women partner together.

The one problem that you have to deal with is the idea you bring up as to "overall leadership/authority" being ascribed exclusively to men - and that idea is not even suggested by the verses you offered.

My response
If you mean complimentary as in equal in authority, then yes they do. For a start, there are no similar or equivalent qualifications for women outlined anywhere in the NT and those quoted are indisputably referring to men. In response to the points, in turn;

(a) Ministry roles yes, leadership roles, again yes, but in acknowledgment that men have seniority in leadership, as evidenced by the gender qualification for eldership.
(b) Balance maybe, but equality or neutrality, no way.
(c) Jointly maybe, equal, no. Partners no problem, equal partners no.

You wrote;
The one problem that you have to deal with is the idea you bring up as to "overall leadership/authority" being ascribed exclusively to men - and that idea is not even suggested by the verses you offered.

My response;
It absolutely is. Eldership is gender based. Exclusive to males.

You wrote;
As for balance, let me offer you again something out of Titus from which book you quoted:

  (a) male leadership offered in Titus 1:9 -
        'holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able,
        by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.'

  (b) female leadership offered in Titus 2:3 -
       'The aged women likewise, that they be . . .teachers of good things"

My response;

I quote in full.

1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things-- 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands,

As you can plainly see and have obviously been misapplying, the verses speak to older brethren both male and female who do not actually hold office, but by dint of their age should be examples.

It clearly shows that older females are expected to engage in a ministry of teaching to younger women. End of story.

Like I have said repeatedly, if you want to ascribe “leadership” to these older women, fine, but it is still subject to the ministry of eldership, which is the preserve of suitably qualified, mature males.

That particular plank of your argument is quite feeble and in fact is the only NT verse you have provided to buttress your position. Not a supporting plank, more like one you should walk  !

Once again, the NT does not support women as Church elders. That they are called to minister, that they have gifts, that their roles are equally important, that they are indispensable to the fullness of home and church life is not in dispute. But they are not called to eldership.

You wrote;
Just that one example for now.

Question: Do men teach? Yes they do.

                 Do women teach as well? Yes they do.

The issue (as has been repeatedly stated) is that the scope of leadership exercised by women is defined by two things:

         i. she is not permitted to "teach" (in which a study of the word there is simply that she is not to assume to be "master" - James 3:1) in the churches;

        ii. she is not to usurp authority over the man (not to be "masters" over men).

But is that saying she is not to teach at all? NO.

Is that also saying she has no leadership role? NO.

My response;
A poor example, especially as it is based on your weak plank above. The area of women teaching is clearly defined. Likewise is the area (over the full/public congregation) they are not. Your colourful exegesis of James 3:1 does not help you either. All can teach, everyone can, but at levels. And at the full congregational level, only Elders, and then not even all elders do or should.

I suggest you swop you “leadership capacity” phrase for “ministry role”. You are doing women a bigger disservice and playing to the gallery. At once suggesting they are leaders in equality with men, whilst at the same time noting that they can’t usurp authority or teach at all levels. More “neither fish nor fowl” theology.

And please stop Trying to use 1 Corinthians 11:11 to validate your case, it doesn’t. It reads from verse one, which indubitably shows the headship of male over female, but notes the complimentriness of the gender relationship.

Again, at best that can suggest “Complimentary leadership”, but not “Equal Leadership”

As for you dislike of the “overall leadership” distinction I make, I have repeatedly said the head of the Church is Christ. But a certain amount of authority is devolved within the body as a whole and a modicum with the plural male eldership.

So far you have two non-binding (one disputable and one aberrant) OT examples and nothing from the NT. In all the years of history, considering all the types and examples, reading the whole of the scriptural narrative, can you honestly say you see a pattern of co-equal or gender-neutral leadership?

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

If you mean complimentary as in equal in authority, then yes they do. For a start, there are no similar or equivalent qualifications for women outlined anywhere in the NT and those quoted are indisputably referring to men. In response to the points, in turn;

(a) Ministry roles yes, leadership roles, again yes, but in acknowledgment that men have seniority in leadership, as evidenced by the gender qualification for eldership.
(b) Balance maybe, but equality or neutrality, no way.
(c) Jointly maybe, equal, no. Partners no problem, equal partners no.

That the verses you offered earlier as qualifications for men do not in any way nullify the very fact that women are also called to jointly exercise leadership in the gifts outlined in Ephesians 4:11. Your strain is an exclusive men-only leadership qualification has not helped in the consideration of those verses that speak to women in leadership.

TV01:

It absolutely is. Eldership is gender based. Exclusive to males.

First, eldership is not exclusive to men; neither are men in a place of 'overall authority' either.

TV01:

As you can plainly see and have obviously been misapplying, the verses speak to older brethren both male and female who do not actually hold office, but by dint of their age should be examples.

This simply tells me again that you haven't studied the meaning of those words. Age there is not referring to the idea of grey hairs. Rather, it speaks to maturity in the faith where such women who qualify by calling and gifting are in view.

TV01:

It clearly shows that older females are expected to engage in a ministry of teaching to younger women. End of story.

In which same case, older men would simply have to look at ministry towards younger men. Case closed.

TV01:

Like I have said repeatedly, if you want to ascribe “leadership” to these older women, fine, but it is still subject to the ministry of eldership, which is the preserve of suitably qualified, mature males.

Please, I ask one simple thing: could you just offer me the verse that says "overall leadership/authority" is exclusively ascribed to MEN?

TV01:

That particular plank of your argument is quite feeble and in fact is the only NT verse you have provided to buttress your position. Not a supporting plank, more like one you should walk

You again confirm the fact that you're looking at one one verse and refusing to consider others - which again makes your argument quite untenable.

TV01:

Once again, the NT does not support women as Church elders. That they are called to minister, that they have gifts, that their roles are equally important, that they are indispensable to the fullness of home and church life is not in dispute. But they are not called to eldership.

Leadership is not confined to your idea of eldership. Ministry gifts, divine commission, and authority are the three features of LEADERSHIP in both OT and NT. Trying to argue only the case of eldership as "overall authority" is a matter of assumption that ignores the whole issue of leadership in the various verses that speak to us on the subject. I've offered that you guys should look at Ephesians 4 again and again; but so far, all you have been doing is looking at only one set of verses to argue for a men-only idea. It simply will not do.

TV01:

A poor example, especially as it is based on your weak plank above. The area of women teaching is clearly defined. Likewise is the area (over the full/public congregation) they are not. Your colourful exegesis of James 3:1 does not help you either. All can teach, everyone can, but at levels. And at the full congregational level, only Elders, and then not even all elders do or should.

You can only consider my arguments weak because you wish it so; not because you really have been able to soundly refute the points I offered. I'm glad now that you've anticipated me on one issue: "not all elders do" (i.e., not all elders teach). The fallacy of your men-only theories is not even within the corridors of leadership; and when you can understand what exactly it means, then you will come round seeing indeed that your idea at best is only assertions in denial, rather than reason to the case.

TV01:

I suggest you swop you “leadership capacity” phrase for “ministry role”. You are doing women a bigger disservice and playing to the gallery.

I don't confuse leadership and ministry. To do that would make me another blind bat in what you guys have been arguing all along - and that is why you guys came making denials earlier against the case of women in leadership in the OT (until recently). Those who have been calling for a men-only leadership/authority (or "overall leadership/authority" should edit their own ideas first before asking others to do anything.

TV01:

At once suggesting they are leaders in equality with men, whilst at the same time noting that they can’t usurp authority or teach at all levels. More “neither fish nor fowl” theology.

What you really don't understand here is this: you're making out your own fishing net theology by constricting "usurp authority" to only women. Hello? This is why I offered sage to reconsider the core issue about Korah!! Korah was not a woman, but even he attempted to "usurp authority" in his rebellion against Moses.

This reminds me again of TayoD's question earlier about whether it is only by "teaching" that women can usurp authority. My answer was no, but rather that is only one example! There are numerous examples of both men and women trying to "usurp authority", and for people with a longer fishnet for men-only theology cannot even see the issue at all.

TV01:

And please stop Trying to use 1 Corinthians 11:11 to validate your case, it doesn’t. It reads from verse one, which indubitably shows the headship of male over female, but notes the complimentriness of the gender relationship.

Don't sob so loud. I only asked you to show me how I Cor. 11 speaks about the home situation, and not the sob you're returning here.

TV01:

Again, at best that can suggest “Complimentary leadership”, but not “Equal Leadership”

And your point is - that women again cannot be leaders?

TV01:

As for you dislike of the “overall leadership” distinction I make, I have repeatedly said the head of the Church is Christ. But a certain amount of authority is devolved within the body as a whole and a modicum with the plural male eldership.

I haven't said I dislike any term you use - I only asked you to defend them. Your complaining is making me laugh. Further, I asked for the references where such ideas are clearly enunciated in the word. Should I keep my fingers crossed for you, or you're going to litter the thread with the same sob complaints?

TV01:

So far you have two non-binding (one disputable and one aberrant) OT examples and nothing from the NT. In all the years of history, considering all the types and examples, reading the whole of the scriptural narrative, can you honestly say you see a pattern of co-equal or gender-neutral leadership?

Please do me one favour: if you are accounting the two examples of Miriam and Deborah as disputable and abberrant, I would like you to go through those verses and offer why Deborah's example of leadership OVER the entire nation is "abberrant" or "disputable".

I have asked you guys why Deborah's example could be reduced to merely "advice/counsel" if she did the exact same thing as the examples of the male Judges I offered. What has been your response?

You see, merely making assertions in denial is not the same thing as acknowledging what is in the Word. I'm least interested in such games you guys play; and I'm hoping that you deal with issues and move this discussion forward.

Cheers.

Guys,

Hmmmmh!  Interesting exchanges, deep and enlightening.  I must say I'm enjoying myself on this!  I'm waiting to see how this lands.  I don't want to disturb the flow.  So you guys carry on.  This has taken the other topic a whole new level!

Blessings.

@Analytical,

How bodi? How is it that you senior discussants are letting the rest of us rascals alone on this thread?!? Abeg, please try and weigh in on this one O! There are issues I simply don't understand - and yours will be greatly appreciated as well.