Ordain women? What do you think?

[George Frink]

Among Southern Baptists in some states, the debate over whether to allow
the ordination of women still rages. One church recently withdrew from
its state Baptist associaton rather than give up the ordination of a
respected Christian woman:

http://www.biblicalrecorder.org

What do you think?

George Frink
Southern Connections

[DoctorKC]

In a message dated 10 Oct 97, George wrote:

>Among Southern Baptists in some states, the debate over whether to allow
>the ordination of women still rages. One church recently withdrew from
>its state Baptist associaton rather than give up the ordination of a
>respected Christian woman:
>

>What do you think?

Hello!

It's not just the Southern Baptist church that's wrestling with the issue..it's
getting to be fairly universal!

I spent a few years examining the evidence and turning it over in my mind, and
in good Christian conscience, I cannot come down on the side of women's
ordination.

This is not because I believe women are inferior in any regard, or any
interpretation {or misinterpretation} of Paul.

What seems evident to me is that men are called to the office of spiritual
shepherd, while women are not. Women can and should serve in the church, and
certainly should work at spreading the Gospel {wasn't Mary the first one to
claim "He is risen!"?}.

However, the pastoral ministry is one of responsibility for "shepherding the
flock". Pastors are accountable to God for the things they preach and how
they were stewards of the spiritual welfare of those entrusted to them.

While a definitive argument that this cannot be done by women can't really be
made, what is lacking is solid Scriptural evidence that women should be
included in this office.

What appears to be demonstrated in Scripture is that the man is responsible for
the maintenance and spiritual welfare of the family. The pastoral ministry is
an extension of this. Nowhere in Scripture is it pointed out that it's the
woman's *responsibility* to keep the family "in line" spiritually and
Scripturally. (The fact that many do is more a testimony to the lack of
effort on the part of the man.)

Women are certainly entitled to a lot more freedom than some fundamentalists
would have it, the way I see it, but the office of the pastoral ministry
appears--unless someone can point me in a different direction--to be reserved
for men.

As a personal observation, I have watched a couple of"liberal" Lutheran
churches in town remove all hindrances from women serving in any office,
including the pastoral ministry, and the churches whither, because the men are
no longer motivated to do the work of the Church, if women can do it all!
More than one woman has complained to me that if women were allowed to do
*anything*, men would do *nothing*, by way of response, and they wish their
church would put it back "the old way" and leave men "in charge"!! Curious,
huh? *I* thought so...

Those are my thoughts.
God bless!
Ken

[Anon]

George Frink <gw...@southernconnections.com> wrote:

>Among Southern Baptists in some states, the debate over whether to allow
>the ordination of women still rages. One church recently withdrew from
>its state Baptist associaton rather than give up the ordination of a
>respected Christian woman:

>http://www.biblicalrecorder.org

>What do you think?

Well, my first question, if debating the issue with someone, would not
be, "are you saved"? Do you rely on Christ alone for salvation? 1
Corinthians 2 says the Spirit of God reveals the mind of God, to the
believer, through the Word of God, that the unregenerate mind cannot
understand spiritual truths, and that the Bible will only seem foolish
to him.

Next, I would ask what their understanding about women's role in the
congregation is based on. If it's not based on the Word of God, then
there's no point trying to debate them, because the Bible is the only
authority on the subject.

Further, I would ask what basic principles of interpretation they
follow. Do they base their interpretation on the actual Greek
definitions of the words? Do they compare Scripture with Scripture?
Do they draw the meaning out of the passage, rather than reading the
meaning into the passage? Do they check the verse with the larger
context of the chapter, and intent of the book?

If you base your beliefs on the Bible alone, and you interpret the
Scripture literally, grammatically, contextually, and comparatively,
then the Bible clearly states in 1 Timothy 2:11 and following, that
women are not permitted to "teach, or usurp authority over a man".
This is backed up by 1 Corinthians 14:34, which says women are not
permitted to speak in church. The instruction in 1 Corinthians 14
says it is the "commandment of the Lord". The context is speaking
about the fact that God is not a God of confusion, but of order.
There is nothing in the passage which even hints at some cultural
reason for the command. Neither do the reasons in 1 Timothy have
anything to do with the culture of any day. The prohibition, there,
is based on God's design in creation (Adam was "chief"), and woman's
part in the fall. I think I've heard almost every objection to these
two verses, and none of them is exegetically sound. The Bible states,
in no uncertain terms, that women are not allowed to teach or usurp
authority over a man.

[CURLYJACK]

What do I think? I think we could debate this on line for as long as the
churches debate it in assemblies or around dinner tables or anywhere else and
we still would not have convinced those of opposite opinions that they are
wrong.

Personally I see no problem with ordaining women. Now, who have I convinced to
believe as I do?

"The only place you can find success before work is in the dictionary".

[Leif G]

In article <61mnto$5...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, gw...@southernconnections.com
says...
SNIP
>What do you think?
SNIP

Contrary to tradition, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits
women from being ordained. So why not ordain women?

Leif

[James Adrian van Wyk]

Leif G wrote:
> >What do you think?

>
> Contrary to tradition, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits
> women from being ordained. So why not ordain women?

Many denominations do ordain women.

javw

[D.Danforth, Disciple of Jesus]

On 14 Oct 1997, Leif G wrote:
> Contrary to tradition, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits
> women from being ordained. So why not ordain women?

In fact it says just the opposite: Galatians 3:28 There is no Jew nor
Greek; there is no bondman nor freeman; there is no male and female;
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus

______________________________________________________
[ Pray for Truth!!! ]
[ Disciple of Christ, David Danforth ]
[ CHRISTIAN STORIES, POEMS, PRAYERS, SONGS, & THEOLOGY ]
[ http://freenet.buffalo.edu/~ci126/ ]
[______________________________________________________]

[Anon]

leif.g...@login.eunet.no (Leif G) wrote:

>Contrary to tradition, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits
>women from being ordained. So why not ordain women?

>Leif

How about 1 Corinthians 14:34, where it says that women are not
permitted to speak in the church? How about 1 Timothy 2:11ff, where
it says women are not permitted to teach, or usurp authority over a
man? How about the qualifications for deacons and overseers in 1
Timothy 3, which say they must be the "husband" of one wife, etc.?
There is nothing in these passages suggesting anything about a
cultural reason for this prohibition of women, and necessity of being
a man. Further, the entire Bible was written in the context of local,
cultural situations. To therefore exclude a passage of Scripture on
the basis it involves contemporary, local situations, renders the
entire Bible irrelevant.

The resons given in 1 Cor. 14, have their basis in the fact that God
is a God of order and not confusion (1 Cor. 14:33, 40); that the OT
Law even agrees with this (14:34), that it is improper for women to
speak in the church (14:35), and that these things which Paul writes
are "the Lords commandment" (14:37). Anyone who does not recognize
this is not supposed to be recognized (14:38). This passage couldn't
be any clearer, or more repetitiously emphatic that women are not to
speak in the church, and that this is God's will.

1 Timothy 2:11ff, clearly says women are not to teach men, or usurp
authority over them, but are to remain quiet. Christ predicted the
Spirit would teach the disciples "all things", and bring to their
rememberance all things He taught them (John 14:26). He commanded
them to go into all the world and teach all things He commanded them
(Matthew 28:19-20). He personally called the apostle Paul to be an
apostle and teacher of the Gentiles (Acts 9; Galatians 1; 1 Tim. 2:7;
2 Tim. 1:11), and the other apostles recognized that God had
authorized Him for this ministry (Acts 15; Galatians 2). 2 Peter 1:21
says that the Spirit of God reveals the Word of God through the
prophets of God. 2 Peter 3:15-16 calls the writings of Paul
"Scripture". 2 Timothy 3:16 confirms that all Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof,
correction, and instruction in righteousness.

Since Paul's writings are "Scripture", since "all" Scripture is
breathed of God, and authored by the the Holy Spirit, Paul's writings
are the inspired Word of God. When he makes statements like "I
command not the Lord", "I do not allow", etc., that does not mean that
he's just making stuff up, but that he is addressing subjects which
the Lord did not address while here on earth. Paul is authorized, as
an apostle and teacher of Christ, to relay inspired commands the Lord
did not address while here on earth. Therefore, one cannot dismiss
instructions just because Paul says "I do not permit". These
instructions are still "Scripture", as Peter confirms, and are
therefore inspired by God.

Then you have the fact that the qualifications for deacons and
overseers are that they be men (1 Timothy 3). "If any MAN aspires to
the office of overseer, it is a fine work HE desires to do (3:1). An
overseer, then, MUST be...the HUSBAND of one wife" (3:2) He must be
one who manages "HIS" own household well, keeping HIS children under
control, (but if a MAN does not know how to mangage his own household,
how will HE take care of the church of God?); and not a new convert,
lest HE become conceited...And HE must have a good
reputation...Deacons, likewise must be MEN of disnity...Let deacons be
HUSBANDS of only one wife. The single verse about "women likewise"
(11), comes just before the statement about deacon's wives. It is
giving qualifications for a deacon's wife (NAS; emphasis mine).

You add these passages together, and you see that women are not
permitted to speak in church, teach or usurp authority over a man, and
that the qualifications for church leadership are for "MEN". If such
repetitious, emphatic passagaes of Scripture are not sufficient to
convince you that women are not permitted to speak in church, let
alone teach or exercise authority over a man, then language ceases to
be a medium for conveying truth.

[Terry Jones]

|> in no uncertain terms, that women are not allowed to teach or usurp
|> authority over a man.
|>

I disagree with your interpretation. The passage in question reads:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I
suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the
man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was
deceived and became a sinner." - 1 Tim. 2:11-14 (NIV)

In my experience, this is one of the most debated passages concerning
women. Since many views are diametrically opposed, it must be the case
that some are misinterpreting its application. Let us carefully examine
this passage with a prayerful mind and an open heart. In discovering the
truths of this passage, let's first eliminate what *IS NOT* being said.
Mike Blume provides a thoughtful contextual analysis:

"... has led some to say that women have no place in
teaching, preaching or prophesying, and leave it at that. Of
course, this does create quite an issue. Without further
elaboration, it simply strikes at the nature and essence of
half of the human race. What does this passage mean? First,
what does it *not* mean:

1. It does not mean that a woman cannot prophecy. The prophecy of
Joel fulfilled at Pentecost according to the demonstration of the
Spirit and the preaching of Acts 2:17- 18 clearly indicates an
inclusion of women to be used in prophecy. Where? Some will say
'in private'. However we realize that prophecy is for the
edification of the church (1 Cor. 14:3-4). Acts 12:9 reveals
Philip's daughters as prophetesses. It was renouned that these
four women prophesied. Since prophecy is the use of a human vessel
for speaking the direct word of God under the unction of the Holy
Ghost, anointed teaching and preaching cannot be excluded from
the ministry of women, scripturally.

2. 1 Tim 2:11-12 does not mean women cannot pray, or that they
should pray silently. 1 Cor. 11:4-5 indicates that the head of the
woman must be covered so as to properly honor her head WHILE
praying. Furthermore, the same verse connects prophesying, and
incorporates the same criteria. Speaking to the church in
edification and comfort while under subject to headship is
evidently depicted as a common operation of women in the of the
ordained church.

3. It does not mean that a woman cannot teach. In Titus 2:3-4
scriptural circumstances depicting women as teachers is given. Also,
if expounding and teaching can be considered synonymous (I hope it
is in my ministry:), Pricilla and her husband Aquilla did indeed
teach one of the great apostolic preachers of the first generation,
Apollos (Acts 18:26).

Thus, we can conclude that the *silence* cautioned by Paul in the
scripture text does NOT exclude women from exercising scripturally
endorsed ministry. As with men, there are conditions for such
ministry, and they need to be understood and not neglected 'lest
confusion and damage result'." [Blume97]

So, then to what *DOES* 1 Tim. 2:11-14 refer? Hayford states simply
that the man (Greek aner) and woman (Greek gune) are husband and wife,
and that Paul is requesting that the unlearned wife control her
remarks/bickering and settle the issue at home. [Hayford95] The
husband-wife hypothesis is a perfectly valid interpretation, yet
it is not required to resolve the paradox we seek to understand.
The following careful examination of verses 11-13 comes largely from the
"Life Application Bible Commentary for 1&2 Timothy & Titus."
I believe the following, together with the understanding that we're
probably talking about a husband-wife relationship, gives a harmonious
understanding of Gods role for women in the church.

Verse 11: We must first understand the situation in which Paul and
Timothy worked. In first-century Jewish culture, women were not allowed
to study. Jews and Gentiles regarded it disgraceful for women to discuss
issues with men in public. The Jews were stricter, not even allowing
women to teach the male children past the age of five. (After male
children reached the age of five, the Jewish men taught them.) In
Greek philosophy, Plato granted women equality with men. Aristotle
severely limited their activities, and his view was more widely accepted.
When Paul said that women should *learn* in quietness and full submission,
he was affirming their recognition as teachable members of the church.
Christian women were given "equal rights" with men when it came to
studying the Holy Scriptures. This was an amazing freedom for many of
the Jewish and Gentile women who had become Christians. There were
several problems in the Ephesian and Corinthian churches that made
teaching in this area difficult. Some women, converted Jews, had grown
up in an atmosphere repressive toward women. Suddenly these women
experienced their freedom in Christ. They overreacted, flaunting their
freedom and disrupting the church service. In addition, some of the
women may have been converts from the cult of temple prostitution, so
widespread in these major cities. These women were immature in the
faith doctrine of Christianity. They needed to *learn*, not *teach*.
Against this backdrop, we have the influence of the false teachers who
emphasized elitism and special knowledge. A third group would be widows
or weak-willed women (identified in 1 Tim. 5:3-16 and 2 Tim. 3:5-9) upon
whom the false teachers were preying. These women should not be put
up front to pray or teach until their doctrine had been straightened
out. Such women were to learn at home from their fathers or husbands;
they were to maintain silence and not disturb the worship services
(1 Cor. 14:35). They were to speak, pray, or prophesy only when it was
from the Spirit (1 Cor. 11:5). Paul's prohibition was not against
women in general. In several places Paul wrote about women in the
church who were coworkers--helping him (Rom. 16:1-3) and contending
beside him for the faith (Phil. 4:2-3). Paul thought that women were
co-heirs of the image of God in Christ, that they were full members of
the body of Christ, and that they fully shared in the responsibilities
and gifts of serving. Women's learning was to be in "quietness and
full submission." Other versions render this as "in silence" (NKJV).
"Quietness" is clearer, for the Greek word used here (hesuchia) and in
verse 2 and 12 means "settledness, calmness, undisturbed, implying
voluntary restraint." Another Greek word, sigao, means "to be silent,"
as used in Luke 18:39 and 1 Cor. 14:34. "Submission" doesn't imply
that women surrender their mind, conscience, or moral responsibility
to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). This submission warns against
presumptive and inappropriate grasping after authority. [Barton93]
We see that the phrase "with all submission" suggests that instruction
was to be received respectfully. Women were to receive instruction in
the worship with a heart of quiet receptivity to the Word.

Verse 12: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over
the man, but to be in silence" is part of a series of present-tense
commands in this chapter ("I urge," or "I am urging," 2:1; "I want,"
or "I am wanting," 2:8 and unspoken 2:9; and "I do not permit," or
"I am not permitting"). Unfortunately, the translation reads as if
Paul actually wrote, "I never permit a woman to teach." Also, the
grammatical order in Greek for this phrase carries less force than the
English one ("To teach, a woman I am not allowing") and completes the
thought about attentive learning in verse 11. The women in the
Ephesian church were allowed to learn, but not to teach. Given the
tension between the influx and recognition of women as fellow heirs
of Christ within the church on the one hand, and the serious problems
being caused by the false teachers on the other, Paul was affirming
one right (to learn) while withholding another right (to teach) because
of the condition of the church at the time. They did not need more
teachers; rather, they all needed to return to the foundational truths
of the gospel (2:3-7). Some interpret this passage to mean that women
should never teach in the assembled church; however, other passages
point out that Paul allowed women to teach. Paul's commended coworker,
Priscilla, taught Apollos, the great preacher (Acts 18:24-26). In
addition, Paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions of
responsibility in the church. Phoebe worked in the church (Rom. 16:1).
Mary, Tryphena, and Tryphosa were the Lord's workers (Rom. 16:6,12),
as were Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2). More likely, Paul restrained
the Ephesian women from teaching because they didn't yet have enough
knowledge or experience. The Ephesian church had a particular problem
with false teachers. Both Timothy's presence and Paul's letters were
efforts to correct the problem. Evidently the women were especially
susceptible to the false teachings (2 Tim. 3:1-9) because they did not
yet have enough biblical knowledge to discern the truth. Paul may have
been countering the false teacher's urging that women should claim a
place of equality for prominence in the church. Because these women
were new converts, they did not yet have the necessary experience,
knowledge, or Christian maturity to teach those who already had extensive
Scriptual education. In addition, some of the women were apparently
flaunting their newfound Christian freedom by wearing inappropriate
clothing (see 2:9). Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone (in this
case, women) into a position of leadership who was not yet mature in
the faith (see 5:22). This deeper principle applies to churches today
(3:6). The women were not to have authority over the men, but instead
were to be silent (meaning quietness, and composure, see verse 11 above).
The expression "to have authority" (Greek authentein), found only here
in the New Testament, implies a domineering, forceful attitude--an
abuse of authority. The typical Greek word, the verb formed from the
normal word for authority, is exousia. Obviously Paul could have used
exousia instead of authentein; authentein is a strong word with a sense
of self-directed domineering. The KJV catches something of the idea
with 'to usurp authority.' Roman law had a prohibition that stated that
a woman should attempt nothing, either in public or in private, that
belongs to man as his peculiar function. [Clarke] The cultural setting
called for men to have authority in the church. The danger Paul was
conteracting included a competitive struggle for power within the church
as women exercised their newfound freedom in Christ. But conversely, Paul
nowhere teaches male authority over women expressed in harsh domination.
Paul's instruction to the women of Ephesus displayed his missionary
strategy. Because his desire was to reach the people of Ephesus with the
gospel, he called for moderation and restraint against the potential misuse
of freedom. Both Jews and Greeks in Ephesus would be scandalized by women
usurping authority over men. This would have created confusion and
resentment among the pagans whom the Ephesian Christians were trying to
reach. So Paul was giving a local strategy of restraining, not issuing
unchanging rules of organization. The women who became Christians may
have thought that their Christian freedom and equality with men before
God gave them the right to question or "lord it over" men in public
worship. This disrupted worship and could have caused dissension in the
church. Remember that equality of worth between the sexes was a
completely foreign concept in both Hebrew and Roman cultures. It was not
expected nor was it offered. The equality given by Christ was radical
(see Gal. 3:26-28).

Verse 13: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve." Scholars are generally
divided into three camps by this verse. POSSIBILITY-1: In previous letters
Paul had discussed male/female roles in marriage (Eph. 5:21-33; Col.
3:18-19). Here he talks about male/female roles within the church.
Some scholars see these verses about Adam and Eve as an illustration
of what was happening in the Ephesian church. Just as Eve had been
deceived in the Garden of Eden, so the women in the church were being
deceived by false teachers. Just as Adam was the first human created
by God, so the men inn the church in Ephesus should be the first to
speak and teach, because they had more training. Eve should have turned
to Adam for advice about Satan's words to her because Adam had more
experience with God's instructions. It was also necessary to simplify
the task of weeding out the false teachers, also men, who were destroying
the church from within. This view, then, stresses that Paul's teaching
here is not universal; rather, it applies to churches with similar
problems. POSSIBILITY-2: Other scholars, however, contend that the
principles Paul points out are based on God's design for his created
order--God established these roles to maintain harmony in both the family
and the church (see Gen. 2:18). God assigned roles and responsibilities
in order for his created world to function smoothly. Although there must
be lines of authority, even in marriage, there should *not* be lines
of superiority. God created men and women with unique and complementary
characteristics. One sex is not better that the other. In designating
Eve as "a helper suitable" for Adam (Gen. 2:18 NIV), the words imply
another like him--signifying similarity and supplementation, but not
dominance. We must not let the issue of authority and submission become
a wedge to destroy what can be excellent working relationships, with
men and women using their varied gifts and abilities to accomplish
God's work. For me, possibility-2 is the least likely of the three:
I do not argue that God has a design, and that the design was created
in a specific order, but I do take issue with the notion that the order
of creation defines Gods plan for authority/leadership. We know that
animals were created before Adam and that certainly did not give them
a higher status. Furthermore, we see God sometimes chooses the youngest
to serve the older (Jacob and Esau in Gen. 25:23; David and Eliab in
1 Sam. 16:6-13). Finally, we are told that our sovereign God calls
whomever he wills (1 Cor. 1:26-29; 2 Tim 1:9). POSSIBILITY-3: Finally,
some scholars see this as an introduction to the argument about the
deception of Eve (which is continued in the next verse), and not a
separate argument in and of itself. The divisons of this passage into
verses was not present in the original epistle, they were added much
later.

Verse 14: "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was
deceived and became a sinner." Paul was not excusing Adam for his
part in the Fall (Gen. 3:6-7, 17-19). On the contrary, in his letter
to the Romans, Paul placed the primary blame for humanity's sinful
nature on Adam (Rom. 5:12-21). Eve had not been told directly by
God about the trees--Adam had instructed her. In turn, God instructed
Adam about the trees before Eve was created. For Eve, the struggle
was over whether to submit to Adam's command or to the serpent's words
that seemed to offer her knowledge and understanding. But when Adam
ate of the fruit, he directly disobeyed God. He was not deceived;
he sinned outright. Paul didn't use this verse to say women were easily
deceived, but to point out that Eve should have submitted to Adam in
her particular situation. This verse should not be taken to prove that
women are more gullible than men in general for two major reasons.
In 2 Cor. 11:3 Paul uses the same illustration of the deception of Eve
to talk of the possibility of both male and female members of the church
being deceived in the way that Eve was. Thus while Paul is clearly
drawing some comparison between Eve's having been deceived and the women
at Ephesus, it seems unlikely that he thought such a tendency as being
an integral part of the nature of woman as opposed to man. Secondly,
and perhaps more importantly, if the reason why women are not to teach
is that they are easily deceived and cannot therefore be trusted, then
the fact that they were permitted to teach children and other women
(1 Tim. 1:5; 3:14; Titus 2:3-4, etc.) would appear to show a lack of
concern that these should 'come to the knowledge of truth' (1 Tim. 2:4),
which seems alien to the whole spirit of the New Testament. Surely,
if Paul was using the argument in this way, he would have barred women
from teaching at all and not simply from teaching men. Paul is speaking
to the connection between possessing wisdom/knowledge and exercising
the teaching/admonishment function in the church (see 1 Tim. 3-7).
In Ephesus, due to the persuasiveness of the male false teachers, some
women *were* gullible. Anybody, particularly women, who are untaught
and easily deceived, must continue to concentrate on learning rather
than on usurping an authority which has not been given to them.

One final thought on 1 Tim. 2: The longest passage in 1 Timothy concerning
women is the discourse on supporting widows in chapter 5. While very
few, if any, churches follow the guidelines in chapter 5 because these
guidelines are viewed as "accommodation-motivated" (see section 2.2), the
guidelines in chapter 2 are often viewed as "absolute".

-terry
t...@cs.stanford.edu

[Anon]

t...@Radon.Stanford.EDU (Terry Jones) wrote:

> I disagree with your interpretation....
> Mike Blume provides a thoughtful contextual analysis:.....

[Five pages of text clipped]

Would you mind condensing this information to its basic elements, and
putting it in your own words? It's kind of difficult for me to even
follow the argument. You should be able to state the basis of your
case, in your own words, in a few moderate sized paragraphs.
I just don't have time for this...

Thanks.

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

> You add these passages together, and you see that women are not
> permitted to speak in church, teach or usurp authority over a man, and
> that the qualifications for church leadership are for "MEN". If such
> repetitious, emphatic passagaes of Scripture are not sufficient to
> convince you that women are not permitted to speak in church, let
> alone teach or exercise authority over a man, then language ceases to
> be a medium for conveying truth.

You left out that women must not wear pearls or braided hair. Also,
Scripture is equally clear that women must keep their heads covered.
Most Christians consider these passages within their historical and
cultural context to learn the truth they convey for today. Do you
interpret all such passages as you have above or only the ones that
keep women from leadership?

Jayne

[Delite]

On 14 Oct 1997 20:41:51 -0400, an...@anon.com (Anon) wrote:

>leif.g...@login.eunet.no (Leif G) wrote:
>>repetitious, emphatic passagaes of Scripture are not sufficient to
>convince you that women are not permitted to speak in church, let
>alone teach or exercise authority over a man, then language ceases to
>be a medium for conveying truth.

There is only one universal truth.. That was then , this is now.

That's why Christians have talked about the old covenant and the new
covenant. I happen to think there is only one covenant= one God.
But God's revelations is manifestly progressive. Yes, even
evolutionary!!

So in their limited spiritual and social perspective the early
Christians, in a patriarchal, male chauvinist mode,, deemed it
wise to suppress women. I hardly think it the thing to do now.
Have you seen some of those women boxers on TV?!

I know, them were the good times for men. But nothing is f orever.

Delite's For info re Bishop Spong, Tom Harpur, and
The Jesus Seminar visit

http://www.orc.ca/~delite/

[Anon]

"D.Danforth, Disciple of Jesus" <ci...@FreeNet.Buffalo.EDU> wrote:

>On 14 Oct 1997, Leif G wrote:
>> Contrary to tradition, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits
>> women from being ordained. So why not ordain women?

>In fact it says just the opposite: Galatians 3:28 There is no Jew nor

>Greek; there is no bondman nor freeman; there is no male and female;
>for ye are all one in Christ Jesus

The purpose of this verse is to show there is no distinction in our
position in Christ, not that there is no distinction in our role in
life. If this verse teaches that there are no differences in roles,
then children who become saved would no longer be under the authority
of their parents, but would have just as much authority in running the
household as their parents.

[SFWhite]

> Leif G:

> Contrary to tradition, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits
> women from being ordained. So why not ordain women?

> Anon:

> You add these passages together, and you see that women are not
> permitted to speak in church, teach or usurp authority over a man, and
> that the qualifications for church leadership are for "MEN". If such

> repetitious, emphatic passagaes of Scripture are not sufficient to
> convince you that women are not permitted to speak in church, let
> alone teach or exercise authority over a man, then language ceases to
> be a medium for conveying truth.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

In light of these verses:

(NIV) I Corinthians 14:33-35:
(33) For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, (34) women should
remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must
be in submission, as the Law says. (35) If they want to inquire about
something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is
disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

How will this Scripture be fulfilled:

(Context: Peter defending the Apostles speaking in tongues on the Day of
Pentecost.)
NIV) Acts 2:16-21 -- (16) No, this is what was spoken by the prophet
Joel:
(17) "`In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all
people.
Your sons and daughters will
prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
(18) Even on my servants, both men and
women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those
days,
and they will prophesy.
(19) I will show wonders in the heaven
above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
(20) The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and
glorious day of the Lord.
(21) And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be
saved.'"

However, Paul seems to be saying here that women are allowed to speak in
congregation:

(NIV)1 Corinthians 11:5 -- And every woman who prays or prophesies with
her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head
were shaved.

This seems to be Paul's overriding message:

(NIV)1 Corinthians 14:1 -- Follow the way of love and eagerly desire
spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

Galatians 3 is extrememly instructive to Christians, and Peter makes the
standing of ALL Christians crystal clear in these verses:

(NIV)Galatians 3:22-29:
(22) But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of
sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus
Christ, might be given to those who believe.
(23) Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law,
locked up until faith should be revealed. (24) So the law was put in
charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. (25)
Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the
law.
(26) You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, (27)
for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves
with Christ. (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, *MALE
NOR FEMALE*, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (29) If you belong to
Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

*NOTE* - My emphasis, not NIV.

The first Scripture quote from I Corinthians 14:33-35 was
explained to me in this way: Women of those days weren't taught even the
basics of Scripture, according to Jewish tradition, but Christianity
gave them new stature within the congregation.
However, their beginning lack of knowledge of even the most
basic of Scriptural teachings caused turmoil with their incessant
questions concerning basic tenets, so they were instructed to ask their
husbands (who HAD these basic foundations) at home, outside the formal
congregational setting. The phrase to note is: "If they want to inquire
about something" found in I Corinthians 14:35.

Jesus is Lord -- SFW

__________________________________________________________________

The purpose of Light is to fill the darkness and travel on;
the purpose of Life is to find the Light and travel with it. - SFW

[Terry Jones]

In article <6213gf$h...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

|> leif.g...@login.eunet.no (Leif G) wrote:
|>
|> >Contrary to tradition, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits
|> >women from being ordained. So why not ordain women?
|>

|> >Leif

I don't think anyone is asserting that Paul's writings are not inspired,
or that we can select the portions of God's word that we like and throw
away the rest. I think many question your interpretation of the above
passages. The passage reads as follows:

"Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh
carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who
is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all
prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.
The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the

congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the

churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission,

as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they

should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for

a woman to speak in the church." - 1 Cor. 14:29-35 (NIV)

The Corinthian church faced many of the same problems that the Ephesian
church faced, and therefore similarities exist in understanding this
passage and 1 Tim. 2 (see section 6.8). Paul recognized that Corinthian
women were praying and prophesying in public worship and did not condemn
them for doing so (1. Cor. 11:5). Yet here he commanded that women
"should remain silent in the churches" (1. Cor. 11:34). One way of
resolving what some consider a discrepancy is by considering the
particular type of speech that Paul disallowed. In this passage, he
was probably discussing the gift of prophecy, and more specifically,
the evaluation or judgment of prophecy (1. Cor. 14:29-39). Paul
allowed women to participate in worship and, indeed, expected that they
would do so (v. 26), but here he may have been forbidding them from
giving spoken criticisms of the prophecies that were made because he
was concerned that the principle of headship be evidenced in the public
assembly of believers. Women's silence during the evaluation of
prophecy was one of the ways in which this was to be accomplished.
Another way to understand this command for women to be silent is in
relationship to Paul's command to the believers to do all things
"decently and in order" (v. 40). God "is not the author of confusion"
(v. 33). The women could have been displaying some kind of disorderly
conduct (v. 35). Others suggest, since the subject of major discussion
in chapter 14 is tongues, that the prohibition to women is to refrain
from ecstatic utterance. Clearly this cannot mean that women are
forbidden altogether to speak in the assembly (1 Cor. 11:5). The
statement "For it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church"
has a cultural context: there was a Jewish ordinance requiring women
to be silent in assemblies. The Jews would not suffer a woman to read
in the synagogue, though a servant or even a child had this permission.
[Clarke]

|> Then you have the fact that the qualifications for deacons and
|> overseers are that they be men (1 Timothy 3). "If any MAN aspires to
|> the office of overseer, it is a fine work HE desires to do (3:1). An
|> overseer, then, MUST be...the HUSBAND of one wife" (3:2) He must be
|> one who manages "HIS" own household well, keeping HIS children under
|> control, (but if a MAN does not know how to mangage his own household,
|> how will HE take care of the church of God?); and not a new convert,
|> lest HE become conceited...And HE must have a good
|> reputation...Deacons, likewise must be MEN of disnity...Let deacons be
|> HUSBANDS of only one wife. The single verse about "women likewise"
|> (11), comes just before the statement about deacon's wives. It is
|> giving qualifications for a deacon's wife (NAS; emphasis mine).
|>
|> You add these passages together, and you see that women are not
|> permitted to speak in church, teach or usurp authority over a man, and
|> that the qualifications for church leadership are for "MEN". If such
|> repetitious, emphatic passagaes of Scripture are not sufficient to
|> convince you that women are not permitted to speak in church, let
|> alone teach or exercise authority over a man, then language ceases to
|> be a medium for conveying truth.

Some have held this list of qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-13) for church
office as a rigid judgment list for disqualifying people. However, since
Rom. 16:1 tells us that Phoebe is a deaconess (the same Greek word diakonos
is used in both 1 Tim. 3 and Romans 16:1) and the list assumes a deacon
is male, it must be that this list is a general guideline which
provides a barometer for spiritual maturity. It would therefore appear
that the "husband of one wife" is an *assumption-based* qualification
and not a *universal* qualification. It would seem that Paul is
assuming that the individual who seeks this office is a man, that he is
married, and that he has children. Assuming then that the man is
married, he "must be the husband of one wife"; and assuming he has
children, they must "obey him with proper respect." It is unlikely
that being a male, being married and having children are *universal*
qualifications for official roles such as apostle, since Paul himself
could not have met two of those three. Furthermore, Paul placed high
value on singleness, actually referring to it as a "gift" in 1 Cor. 7:7.
Those who argue that being a male is a *universal* qualification for
overseers are inconsistent if the do not insist that marriage and
parenthood be qualifications--which places them in opposition to
1 Cor. 7. Most individuals and churches who deny women office on
the basis of this passage, however, do not require that elders be
married and have children, and all too frequently do not uphold the
actual qualifications list with rigor--that the candidate be temperate,
self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, and so on.

Paul's principle, then, is not the wearing of veils or the silence of
women, but rather conforming to Jewish and moralistic pagan norms for
the sake of the gospel. . . In biblical times even for a woman to speak
publicly was considered a symbol of impropriety. . . .If a woman speaking
in the first century was an offense to the people Paul sought to reach,
today it is just the reverse. A society that accepts women as corporation
executives and university presidents will find it difficult to listen
to a church that silences them. . . .If some in Paul's day considered
it shameful for women to speak publicly, or to appear without a facial
veil, or to have hair flowing down, what are the implications of the fact
that it is shameful in our society today to restrict women from full
equality and opportunity? If Paul could accommodate principle without
abandoning it, can we say something to those we seek to reach by the
equality and opportunities given women in the church. . . ? If not, we
may be perpetuating form (the silence of women) while actually abandoning
Paul's principle of accommodation. [Tucker92] The acceptance of women
in a public place of ministry in the church is not a concession to the
spirit of the feminist movement. But the refusal of such a place might
be a concession to an order of male chauvinism, unwarranted and
unsupported in the Scriptures. Clearly women did speak--preach and
prophesy--in the early church (see 1 Tim. 2:8-15). [Hayford95]
"The God of the Bible has no respect of persons..(Romans 2:11; cf. also 2
Samuel 14:14; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Acts 10:34; Ephesians 6:9). He calls
whom He will, gives gifts and ministries as He chooses, and man must not
put limitations on divine prerogatives. In Christ we are truly set free
from sin and its curse which separates from God and elevates or demeans
according to race, social standing, or gender." [Silkia97]

========================================================================

Now, may I ask you some questions? A correct understanding of scriptures
requires that we rightly divide the whole bible. How do you explain that
the bible includes a number of women in important leadership/ministrial
roles:

Miriam, the first minister of music (Ex. 15:20)
Deborah, a national leader of Israel (Jud. 4:4-14)
Huldah, a leader & prophetess (2 Chron. 34:22)
Anna the prophetess (Luke 2:36)
Priscilla the Bible teacher (Acts 18:26)
Phoebe the deaconess (Rom. 16:1)
Tabitha, who did good and helped the poor (Acts 9:36)
Junia, who was quite possibly a highly regarded female apostle (Rom. 16:7)
Lydia organized a group/church at Philippi (Acts 16:14,40)
Philip's daughters exercised spiritual gifts/prophecy (Acts 21:9)
Peter's mother-in-law, serving ministry/helps (Luke 4:38,39)

Why are spiritual gifts distributed without regard to gender? There is
no gift of teaching--male or mercy--female.

How do you explain that all believers are to teach one another (Col. 3:16)
and to share with the community what they have learned (1 Cor. 14:26)?
Priscilla, together with her husband Aquila, instructed a Christian
brother, Apollos, in matters of theology (Acts 18:26). The apostle Paul
recognized Priscilla's ministry and obviously loved and respected her as
well as other female co-laborers (Rom. 16:3,6,12; Phil. 4:3). Paul also
encouraged older women to teach younger women (Titus 2:3-5) and
admonished Timothy to respect Lois and Eunice, his mother and grandmother,
for instructing him in the faith. [Patterson95]

How do you explain that Jesus affirmed the ministry of women in
evangelism? This was most evident in His interaction with the Samaritan
woman at the well of Sychar (John 4:1-30). Culturally, Jews and
Samaritans did not associate with each other. Moreover, for a rabbi to
speak to a woman in public was considered improper. Christ's regard for
this woman was therefore truly revolutionary. After their meeting, she
returned to her city and presented her witness. Many believed in Him
because of her testimony (w. 28, 29). At that time, women were not
considered reliable witnesses; yet Christ chose a woman as His witness.
God chose women as the first witnesses of Christ's Resurrection (Matt.
28:1-8), and they were entrusted with Christ's first post-Resurrection
message to His disciples (John 20:15-18). The coming of the Spirit
reinforced the role of women in evangelism. Women, together with men,
were empowered to be witnesses to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). The
establishment of the Philippian church involved women (Acts 16:11-15),
and women were also involved in spreading the gospel in Berea (Acts
17:12). New Testament women, along with men, were commissioned to be
the "light of the world" and were thus extensively involved in the
ministry of evangelism (Matt. 5:14-16). [Patterson95]

The Bible nowhere submits or subordinates women to men in general.
The fact that married women are called to submit themselves to their
husband is never shown, nor was it ever given, to reduce the potential,
purpose, or fulfillment of the woman. Only fallen nature or persistent
church traditionalism, finding occasion through "proof-texts" separated
from their full biblical context, can make a case for the social
exploitation of women or the restriction of women from church ministry.
[Hayford92]

-terry

[Anon]

t...@Radon.Stanford.EDU (Terry Jones) wrote:

>I don't think anyone is asserting that Paul's writings are not inspired,
>or that we can select the portions of God's word that we like and throw
>away the rest. I think many question your interpretation of the above
>passages.

What one thinks, or what is popular, is not necessarily what is true
and right, though....

>The passage reads as follows:.......

> The Corinthian church faced many of the same problems that the Ephesian
> church faced, and therefore similarities exist in understanding this
> passage and 1 Tim. 2 (see section 6.8).

> ...One way of

> resolving what some consider a discrepancy is by considering the

> particular type of speech that Paul disallowed....

There are only a couple problems with this idea that maybe only
certain types of communication were prohibited. 1) The type of
communication which is prohibited is "speech", not just "speaking in
tongues", or "prophesying". 2) They were supposed to wait until they
got home to even ask questions of their husbands. If the prophibition
of speaking were only during the times of prophesying, or speaking in
tongues, then why would women have to wait until they get home to
speak? Why couldn't they just wait until people were done praying and
prophesying?

> Clearly this cannot mean that women are
> forbidden altogether to speak in the assembly (1 Cor. 11:5).

First of all, why must this passage be referring to praying or
prophesying in a local church? The passage doesn't say, here, that it
is. Further, Verse 17 changes the subject with "But in giving this
instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for
the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come
together as a church...." Here, Paul is giving a different
instruction which pertains to "when you come together as a church".
It is contrasted from the preceeding comments on women praying or
prophesying with their heads uncoverd by the word "But". There isn't
anything in the passage about women praying or prophesying which says
it is refering to the context of a local church assembly, and the
following verses introduce a different set of instructions regarding
"But...when you come together as a church".

>The
> statement "For it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church"
> has a cultural context: there was a Jewish ordinance requiring women
> to be silent in assemblies. The Jews would not suffer a woman to read
> in the synagogue, though a servant or even a child had this permission.
> [Clarke]

The entire Bible has a cultural context, and was written in the
context of local, cultural, contemporary situations. To therefore
dismiss this passage on the principle that it may have involved
cultural situations, is to render the entire Bible irrelevant. The
church is a different organism than national Israel, and consisted of
a variety of people from a variety of cultures. For Paul to therefore
impose a Jewish custom on the NT church would go contrary to the fact
that he everywhere else teaches that it is one body from both Jews and
Gentiles (Eph. 2 - 3; Gal. 3). In Galatians 2, Paul confronted Peter
for returning to the OT custom of not eating with Gentiles (cf. Acts
10).

In Acts 15, the apostles considered the ramifications of mixing Jews
with Gentiles, and whether to impose any of the OT instructions upon
them:

"Therefore it is my judment that we do not trouble those who are
turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that
they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication
and from blood" (Acts 15:19-20; NAS).

Here we see that the first church counsel determined not to impose
Jewish Law or customs on the church. To suggest, therefore, that Paul
is trying to impose OT Law on the Corinthian church, and only that
church, seems to contradict every clear indication from other passages
mentioned above.

> Some have held this list of qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-13) for church
> office as a rigid judgment list for disqualifying people. However, since
> Rom. 16:1 tells us that Phoebe is a deaconess (the same Greek word diakonos
> is used in both 1 Tim. 3 and Romans 16:1)

This is an extremely weak argument. The word diakonos means "through
the dust". It can refer to an act of service, or an office of
service. Anyone can be a deacon in the sense of serving others, but
only men can qualify for the office. Further, you make it seem like
people who hold the plain, literal, interpretation of the passage are
rigid, and out to disqualify people. This is the argument Satan used
to get Eve to be discontent with her current God ordained role. He
told her that God was being strict with her, and that He was trying to
keep her from enjoying equality with God.

> and the list assumes a deacon
> is male, it must be that this list is a general guideline which
> provides a barometer for spiritual maturity.

Why "must" it be that this list is a "general" guideline? It appears
you are assuming this based only on the single obscure reference to
Pheobe. But, as shown above, the word can be used to denote an act of
service, or an office of service. The fact that Pheobe did acts of
service does not therefore, of necessity, mean that she held the
office. Why force 1 Tim. 3, with its clear and manifold references to
the fact that deacons are men, into the mold of a single reference to
Pheobe doing an act of service for the church? This seems to be a
pattern among those who would have us under the authority of women.
They explain away multiple clear, manifold references, in favor of an
unusual interpretation or a single obscure verse which seems on the
surface to contradict.

> It would therefore appear
> that the "husband of one wife" is an *assumption-based* qualification
> and not a *universal* qualification.

It wouldn't appear that way to me. It would appear to me that every
reference in the passage is that qualification for the office requires
that the individual be a man. Especially if this is "assumed".

> It is unlikely
> that being a male, being married and having children are *universal*
> qualifications for official roles such as apostle, since Paul himself
> could not have met two of those three.

Yes, but the official role in question , here, is not that of an
"apostle", as you have above, but of overseers and deacons.

Look at the maneuvering you have to do to take us from the multiple
references that the person who wants the office must be male, to the
idea that women can hold it. This argument seems to ignore the
obvious in favor of something which isn't even hinted at in the
passage. You seem to be forcing this passage into the mold of a
single obscure reference to Pheobe doing an act of service for the
church, rather than letting the passage which is specifically aimed at
giving the qualifications for the office mean what it naturally, and
abundantly states and assumes, i.e. that being a man is a
qualification.

> Furthermore,

As if you've just made a strong case......

> Paul placed high
> value on singleness, actually referring to it as a "gift" in 1 Cor. 7:7.
> Those who argue that being a male is a *universal* qualification for
> overseers are inconsistent if the do not insist that marriage and
> parenthood be qualifications--which places them in opposition to
> 1 Cor. 7.

Rather than "universal" qualification, and "general" qualification, I
prefer the "stated" qualification, and the "obvious" qualification,
i.e. that a deacon or overseer is a "he", and that this is so obvious
that it is just assumed.

> Most individuals and churches who deny women office on
> the basis of this passage,

"Deny"? This sounds like Satan whispering into the ear of Eve, to
make her discontent with her curent, God given situation. "God is
denying you the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil",
he said. Why "deny" women their contentment?

> Paul's principle, then,

As if what preceded clearly and undeniably proves the point.....

> is not the wearing of veils or the silence of
> women, but rather conforming to Jewish and moralistic pagan norms for
> the sake of the gospel. .

No, Paul did what he could, without sinning, to avoid offending people
when he initially told them the gospel. But, as Acts 15 states, the
first church counsel, consisting of all the apostles, determined not
to impose any Jewish "norms" on the churches, other than:

"Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are
turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that
they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication
and from what is strangled and from blood."

> In biblical times even for a woman to speak
> publicly was considered a symbol of impropriety. . . .If a woman speaking
> in the first century was an offense to the people Paul sought to reach,
> today it is just the reverse. A society that accepts women as corporation
> executives and university presidents will find it difficult to listen
> to a church that silences them.

Read 1 Peter 3:1-6. Peter urges women to submit to their husbands, as
"Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord". Sarah lived about 3,000
years before Peter, yet he used her as an example of the way "godly
women" should behave. You don't see Peter saying, "share equal
authority with your husband, because the only reason Sarah obeyed
Abraham was because it was popular in the culture of her day, before
they became more enlightened as we now are". Get off this "cultural"
interpretation.

> If some in Paul's day considered
> it shameful for women to speak publicly, or to appear without a facial
> veil, or to have hair flowing down,

See above....

> what are the implications of the fact
> that it is shameful in our society today to restrict women from full
> equality and opportunity?

See above.....

"Restrict"? Again, I hear Satan whispering into Eve's ear...God is
trying to restrict you from becoming like Him!...Go ahead...eat the
fruit....then you can be like God!

There is no indication in the passages mentioned, that the
instructions were based only on comtemporary culture of that day. In
1 Cor. 11:3, you have God's stated chain of authority, "But I want you
to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the
head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." It then goes on to
say that God didn't make the man for the woman's sake, but the woman
for the man's sake (i.e. it is not good that the man be alone, I will
make a help suitable for him).

In 1 Cor. 14, it says God is not a God of confusion, but of order
(33), that the command for them to remain silent is from the Lord
(37), and that anyone who does not acknowledge this should not be
acknowledged (38). In 1 Timothy 2:11ff., the stated reasons for women
not teaching men or usurping authority over them, is because God
created Adam chief, and because of Eve's part in the fall.

It is totally false to impute the idea that this is a cultural thing
which only applied to that day. In every case, the role of women is
based on God's design in creation. Besides, the entire Bible was
written in the context of local, contemporary, cultural situations,
regarding eternal, spiritual principles. To dismiss a passage just on
the basis it involves cultural or contemporary aspects, is to render
the entire Bible irrelevant.

Why follow a pattern of interpretation which first claims the passage
doesn't necessarily mean what it repeatedly says, then that it means
something it doesn't say?

> That women are

> If Paul could accommodate principle without
> abandoning it, can we say something to those we seek to reach by the
> equality and opportunities given women in the church. . . ? If not, we

> may be .....

[Anon]

SFWhite <sfw...@primenet.com> wrote:

>(Context: Peter defending the Apostles speaking in tongues on the Day of
>Pentecost.)
>NIV) Acts 2:16-21 -- (16) No, this is what was spoken by the prophet

>Joel:...

1. This is describing a temporary phenomenon
2. It says nothing about the context of a church meeting, or that
women will prophesy to men.
3. It says nothing about holding the office of a prophet.

To conclude, on the basis of this passage, that God therefore wants
women to hold the office of a prophet in the local church, and teach
men, is reading more into the passage than it says.

>However, Paul seems to be saying here that women are allowed to speak in
>congregation:

>(NIV)1 Corinthians 11:5 -- And every woman who prays or prophesies with
>her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head
>were shaved.

The only point of this passage is tho show that women should cover
their heads when praying or prophesying. Why would Paul's mention
that women were praying or prophesying have to mean in church, or be
any more an endorsement of that practice than the following mention of
glutony and divisions is an endorsement of those?

>This seems to be Paul's overriding message:

>(NIV)1 Corinthians 14:1 -- Follow the way of love and eagerly desire
>spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

I hope you're saying that love is the overriding message, and not that
reference to women prophesying.

>Galatians 3 is extrememly instructive to Christians, and Peter makes the
>standing of ALL Christians crystal clear in these verses:

>(NIV)Galatians 3:22-29:.....

Time and time again, this passage is quoted as if it means that women
should assume the same roles as men. This passage teaches equality of
position as children of God, not that everyone shares the same roles
and rank in life. If this passage teaches there is no difference in
authority or roles, then any saved children would have equal authority
in the household with their parents. Parents could no longer tell
their saved children what to do, and children would no longer have to
obey their parents. Parents would have to consult with their children
to get permission to take action, etc. No, this verse teaches
equality of spiritual position as children of God, and not equality of
rank and role in life. 1 Corinthians 12 says it is the people who
think all memebers of the body should share the same role who causes
schisms, or divisions in the body. It is the diversity of roles which
enables the body to function properly, and insisting on giving
everyone the same role only hinders the proper function of the body.

> The first Scripture quote from I Corinthians 14:33-35 was

>explained to me in this way: Women of those days...

Yada, yada, yada. Get "cultural interpretation" out of your mind.
The entire Bible was written in the context of various local,
contemporary, cultural situations. To therefore dismiss this passage
on the basis it was only a cultural situation of that time is to
render the entire Bible irrelevant. The reasons given have nothing to
do with culture, but with the fact that God is a God of order, not
confusion, the fact that even the OT Law agrees with women remaining
silent in the church, and the fact that it is the Lord's commandment
(37). Anyone who does not acknowledge this is not supposed to be
acknowledged (38).

[D.Danforth, Disciple of Jesus]

If a woman is the same in christ as me or you, and the holy spirit
speaks to them the same, why can they not preach? Paul taught many
things that Christ didn't, this is one of them.

[Anon]

jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
wrote:

>You left out that women must not wear pearls or braided hair. Also,
>Scripture is equally clear that women must keep their heads covered.
>Most Christians consider these passages within their historical and
>cultural context to learn the truth they convey for today. Do you
>interpret all such passages as you have above or only the ones that
>keep women from leadership?

I follow the principle of clear reference. That is that if a doctrine
is clearly established in a passage or group of passages, or in a book
which more particularly applies to the subject at hand, then you
interpret less clear passages in light of the clear ones, rather than
forcing the clear ones into the mold of the less clear.

For example, if 1 Tim 2:11ff.; 3, and 1 Cor. 14, in books which are
specifically addressed to the NT church, regarding proper conduct
within church, clearly, repetitiously, and emphatically say that women
are not supposed to speak in church, teach or usurp authority over a
man, or hold the office of deacons or pastors, then you don't make
some passage from Joel about women prophesying in the last days your
overriding proof that women should therefore teach men, hold the
office of pastor, etc.

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

> jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
> wrote:
>
>>You left out that women must not wear pearls or braided hair. Also,
>>Scripture is equally clear that women must keep their heads covered.
>>Most Christians consider these passages within their historical and
>>cultural context to learn the truth they convey for today. Do you
>>interpret all such passages as you have above or only the ones that
>>keep women from leadership?
>
> I follow the principle of clear reference. That is that if a doctrine
> is clearly established in a passage or group of passages, or in a book
> which more particularly applies to the subject at hand, then you
> interpret less clear passages in light of the clear ones, rather than
> forcing the clear ones into the mold of the less clear.

[]

I follow the principle that the Bible as whole is the word of God.
There are many, many passages that relate to women's status. It is
important to consider all of them. We need to be cautious about
claiming certain passages are clearer than others.

I just took a course on Pauline Epistles last year. One thing I
learned was that Paul's letters were written to address specific
situations and answer specific questions. They illustrate general
principles that apply to us today. We need to reconstruct the context
as much as possible in order to understand what these principles are.

I've noticed in some of your other posts that you seem to think that
recognizing Scripture as historically and culturally contingent
somehow diminishes its authority as the word of God. I disagree. The
more we consider the context of a passage the better we can understand
what God is saying to us. For example, specific issues arising from
the differences between Jewish and Gentile Christians occur repeatedly
in the New Testament. Even though this situation no longer exists in
the Church, understanding this context allows us to see how those
passages apply to us. Few of us are faced with deciding whether to
eat meat sacrificed to idols, yet the verses on this subject are
crucial for understanding how Christians should deal with differences
among themselves.

Similarly, passages about women's clothing and behavior, when examined
in historical context, show us principles that apply now. I do not
believe that God is commanding me to keep my head veiled when praying
(1 Cor 11) or to refrain from braiding my hair and wearing jewelery (1
Peter 3), even though these things are clearly stated. The passage
about wearing veils doesn't make much sense in our culture, but I can
still learn from it. It shows me that it is disruptive to shock people
by ignoring customs and traditions. In my culture I don't need to
worry about veils, but I should dress appropriately for church.

When Paul writes that women should not speak in church is that a
command to follow literally or does it illustrate a guiding principle
which should be applied differently in our culture? Whichever way
people answer this question they are still trying to follow God's
will as revealed in Scripture.

Jayne

[ri...@southeast.net]

>On 10 Oct 1997 22:22:48 -0400, George Frink >gw...@southernconnections.com> wrote:

>Among Southern Baptists in some states, the debate over whether to allow
>the ordination of women still rages. One church recently withdrew from
>its state Baptist associaton rather than give up the ordination of a
>respected Christian woman:
>
>http://www.biblicalrecorder.org
>
>What do you think?
>

>George Frink
>Southern Connections

George,

Since your question pertains to a Christian subject, then the basis
for answering it should come from the Bible.

How does the Bible define a person as "ordained"? The Apostles Peter
and John were certainly qualified to preach and teach about Jesus,
weren't they? Yet notice the comment from some onlookers at Acts 4:13,

"When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they
were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note
that these men had been with Jesus." (NIV)

Notice that they were "unschooled" and "ordinary". They had not
attended any religious school, let alone graduated from one. They were
just ordinary people who were well trained and had a good knowledge of
the scriptures.So ordination did not require special ceremonies or a
school certificate. The examples in Acts bears this out. The record
in Acts repeatedly tells of the performance of simple baptisms of
believers. This was followed by their zealously sharing in the public
ministry. (Acts 2:41-47; 8:36-39; 22:14-16)

So how can a person prove he is "ordained" if he doesn't have a
certificate? The Apostle Paul tells us at 2 Co 3:1-3,

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some
people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? 2 You yourselves
are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. 3
You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our
ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God,
not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (NIV)

The effect of God's spirit on these taught ones' hearts produced a
new Christian personality, which could be read by all observers. This
was sufficient testimony that God had indeed ordained the ones sharing
in teaching these new disciples.

But what role does the Bible give for women in the preaching and
teaching work? Can woman also be "ordained"? Based on the scriptures
mentioned above, the answer is yes. But since God is an orderly God
and each person has their responsibilities, the Bible tells us the
assignment for woman.

Jesus set the example by only appointing men as the twelve Apostles
and only men were used as the 70 evangelists. (Mt 10:1-4; Lu 10:1)
The Apostle Paul only allowed men to be appointed elders and
deacons. (1 Ti 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9) Then Paul went on to say, "I do
not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must
be silent." (1 Ti 2:12, NIV) Does this mean a woman can't preach and
teach others about God? No. Based on what other scriptures say, Paul
is referring to teaching within the congregation, not outside of it.
For example, Peter shows us that the fulfillment of Joel 2:28,29
occurred on the day of Pentecost. Peter said that "daughters" and
"woman" would prophesy, thus they would be involved in the preaching
work. (Ac 1:14,15; 2:1-4,17,18)
That woman were preaching outside the congregation is also evident
from the account at Ac 18:26,

"He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and
Aquila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God
more accurately."
(RSV)

Notice both of them, "they", were teaching Apollos more accurate
information about God. (see also Php 4:2,3)

Yes, woman have their assignments as well as children and men, and
even Jesus, in God's arrangement of things. (1 Co 11:3)

Sincerely,

James

***********************************
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the only authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************

[Anon]

"D.Danforth, Disciple of Jesus" <ci...@FreeNet.Buffalo.EDU> wrote:

>If a woman is the same in christ as me or you, and the holy spirit
>speaks to them the same, why can they not preach? Paul taught many
>things that Christ didn't, this is one of them.

She can, just not in the church, or to men (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim.
2:11ff.).

Christ said when the Spirit came, He would guide the disciples into
all truth, teach them all things, and bring to rememberance the things
He had taught them (John 14). He commanded the disciples to go into
all the world, making disciples, and teaching them all things that He
commanded. Christ personally called Paul to be an apostle and teacher
of the Gentiles (Acts 9; Galatians 1; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11).

Peter said Scripture was written by men under the direction of the
Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21), and that Paul's writings were Scripture (2
Pet. 3:15-16). The other apostles acknowledged Paul's ministry was
from God (Acts 15).

Paul said "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is

profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in

righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
furnished for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16). Therefore, just because
Paul says "I say", or teaches something that the Lord didn't teach
about while He was here on earth, doesn't mean that Paul's writings
are not the inspired Word of God. He was Christ's authorized teacher
of the Gentiles, and had received additional revelations (2 Cor.
12:1-9), which the other apostles had not. Peter acknowledged his
writings as being equal to other Scripture.

[SFWhite]

> SFW:

> (Context: Peter defending the Apostles speaking in tongues on the Day of
> Pentecost.)
> NIV) Acts 2:16-21 -- (16) No, this is what was spoken by the prophet

> Joel:...

> Anon:

1. This is describing a temporary phenomenon

SFW:
This is announcing the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy.

> Anon:

2. It says nothing about the context of a church meeting, or that women
will prophesy to men.

SFW:
That is COMPLETELY your opinion, and discounts the actual words of the
prophecy. Isn't that rather dangerous? Are there no men in Christ's
body? Prophecy is FOR the church, and if men and women prophecy it
edifies the curch and no one else.

> Anon:

3. It says nothing about holding the office of a prophet.

SFW:
And how do you arrive at THAT? If God chooses a woman, His judgement
is faulty? Perhaps He'd better be instructed as to His error. YOU want
to give Him the message? I sure don't! However, we wouldn't want God
doing anything that could embarrass us, holy, righteous, and altogether
sanctimonious as we are. Heaven forbid we should be brought low by God!

> Anon:

To conclude, on the basis of this passage, that God therefore wants
women to hold the office of a prophet in the local church, and teach
men, is reading more into the passage than it says.

SFW:
Uhhuh. How's your relationship with your mother?

> SFW:

> However, Paul seems to be saying here that women are allowed to speak in
> congregation:
>
> (NIV)1 Corinthians 11:5 -- And every woman who prays or prophesies with
> her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head
> were shaved.

> Anon:
The only point of this passage is to show that women should cover their

heads when praying or prophesying. Why would Paul's mention that women
were praying or prophesying have to mean in church, or be any more an
endorsement of that practice than the following mention of glutony and
divisions is an endorsement of those?

SFW:
Good GRIEF! Your brains are in a tight knot! You speak like a
misogynist! Is that truly what you wish to convey to us? Your
attitude, as expressed, is responsible for such interesting little
sojourns as the Crusades and the Inquisition. Christ had nothing to do
with either. Hitler used the name of Christ to justify his crimes. He
was a Purist. No true Christian would call him one of us.
You seem more than a bit overzealous, a strong wind would snap you in
two. I'm new to this newsgroup, but from what I've read of yours, I
agree with your overall intent. Men and women have their natures,
man's is as "doer", woman's is as "helper". NEITHER could make it
without the other, our natures complement and complete each other.
True Love never bullies, and a shrewish women is an abomination, but so
is a stiff-backed man. Cruelty, close-mindedness, and a self-righteous
attitude never won a single soul, or did one good thing for Christ. How
can you have a closed mind and an open heart?
My intent was that in certain instances, such as a message from God to
the church, there are overriding considerations. The speaker of a
prophecy is only a vessel, and to discount or dissallow a message from
God because of the speaker is to deny the Giver of that message, not the
speaker. It is VITAL that such messages come under scrutiny of the
Prophets so they may be validated or debunked. If it is a true message
from God, it is EXPRESSLY for the edification of the church, and the
church needs to hear it.
Should it be a "he said she said God said" sort of thing? If that's
so, why wouldn't God just bypass all the middlemen and give His message
to someone who "counted"?

> SFW:

> This seems to be Paul's overriding message:
>
> (NIV)1 Corinthians 14:1 -- Follow the way of love and eagerly desire
> spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

> Anon:

> I hope you're saying that love is the overriding message, and not that
> reference to women prophesying.

SFW:
I was talking in the narrow line of gifts of the Spirit, and the
exercise thereof by members of the church.

> SFW:

> Galatians 3 is extrememly instructive to Christians, and Peter makes the
> standing of ALL Christians crystal clear in these verses:
>

> (NIV)Galatians 3:22-29:.....

SFW:
Thank you for not correcting my glaring error of typing "Peter" instead
of "Paul" in the above, it was kind of you.

> Anon:

Time and time again, this passage is quoted as if it means that women
should assume the same roles as men. This passage teaches equality of
position as children of God, not that everyone shares the same roles and
rank in life.

SFW:
Why on EARTH would women WANT to take over men's roles?! Don't they
have enough to do already?! Men and women are complete ONLY when they
adhere to the will of God, imprinted on their natures. I'm a strong
woman, but my husband is the head of our house. That's meant a
wonderful and fulfilling marriage for both of us for 27 years nows. We
are one person. He's the head, I'm the heart. Who could live without
either?

> Anon:

If this passage teaches there is no difference in authority or roles,
then any saved children would have equal authority in the household with
their parents. Parents could no longer tell their saved children what
to do, and children would no longer have to obey their parents. Parents
would have to consult with their children to get permission to take
action, etc.

SFW:
Are you as embarrassed as you should be by the above analogy? Paul
states very clearly that men are to be as giving and good to their wives
as wives are to be to their husbands. Is his analogy only to be applied
to marriage? There will be no marriages in heaven. Shouldn't this be
applied in a broader sense to ALL interactions between males and felames
within the church?
When we correct our children, if it ISN'T out of Love and concern for
their welfare, then it's WRONG! While we are teaching them how to
survive in the World, our children are our responsibility. They have
been given into our keeping by God, and it's a sacred duty to be carried
out with Love.
If one of your children ran to you yelling, "There's a fire in the
basement!" would you discount the message because it came from a child?
That would be stupid, wouldn't it? What if your child told you, "That's
not what Jesus would do." Would you dismiss the statement since it came
from a child, or would you examine whatever caused your child to say
such a thing to see if the child's observation was true? What do such
things as these have to do with hierachy?

> Anon:

No, this verse teaches equality of spiritual position as children of
God, and not equality of rank and role in life. 1 Corinthians 12 says
it is the people who think all memebers of the body should share the
same role who causes schisms, or divisions in the body. It is the
diversity of roles which enables the body to function properly, and
insisting on giving everyone the same role only hinders the proper
function of the body.

SFW:
I agree. But are those roles to be defined by man, or God? Spiritual
gifts are from God, not man, and can't be dictated by human whim. Who
wouldn't laugh at, "Now, let's see ... hmmmmm ... I nominate Charlie as
our Prophet. Okay, Charlie, give us a prophecy." Do you believe Paul's
intent was to mute half the congregation even if God decided
differently?
When our son was small, he went to church with his grandfather. The
church was "into" the gifts of the Spirit apparently, especially
"tongues". My son was scared and very upset when he got home.
He told me, "Those people are CRAZY, Mom! The preacher's wife stood up
there behind him the whole time he was trying to preach, making blahba
blahba blahba sounds, with her mouth wide open and her tongue sticking
out. She was acting crazy! Why did the preacher let her do that? I
couldn't even hear what the preacher said, a lot of the people were
making so much noise and jiggling around. I NEVER want to go there
again! Were they crazy, Mom?"

> SFW:

> The first Scripture quote from I Corinthians 14:33-35 was

> explained to me in this way: Women of those days...

> Anon:
Yada, yada, yada.

SFW:
That remark was beneath you.

> Anon:
Get "cultural interpretation" out of your mind. The entire Bible was

written in the context of various local, contemporary, cultural
situations. To therefore dismiss this passage on the basis it was only

a cultural situation of that time is to render the entire Bible

irrelevant. The reasons given have nothing to do with culture, but with
the fact that God is a God of order, not confusion, the fact that even
the OT Law agrees with women remaining silent in the church, and the
fact that it is the Lord's commandment (37). Anyone who does not

acknowledge this is not supposed to be acknowledged (38).

SFW:
God said He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His Laws don't
change because we do. Never once did Jesus demean or dismiss women, He
held them in high reagard. He held children in high regard, too.
God gave woman to man because man couldn't make it alone, He didn't
give Eve to Adam as his slave. There was no housework or toil in the
Garden of Eden. There were two people who needed each other, who relied
on each other, who loved and cared for each other.
Do you really think Paul was trying to dismiss the women of the church
except as people to keep the place clean and the children orderly?
Examine your heart. Does the Spirit of Christ in you tell you this?
What IS woman to you that you hold her in such low regard?
Are you married? Do you love your wife and value her opinion? If you
do, how can you dismiss the value of a Christian woman's voice in
congregation? If the Spirit dwells in her, then she is temperate, and
what she says has value. If God is first with her and lives in her
heart, then what she says, with good sense and prudence, can only help
the church, and to forbid her is to cripple the church. What Christian
wants that?

(NIV) Galatians 5:22-23 -- (22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love,
joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, (23) gentleness
and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Jesus is Lord -- SFW

PS - By the way, I was raised a strict Southern Baptist, and exercising
gifts of the Spirit, such as tongues and prophecy, in church are frowned
on altogether when exhibited by ANYONE among Southern Baptists. My
grandmother explained it to me this way, "Yes, dear, the Spirit moves in
Baptists, too. But it moves us to sing, or to preach, or to be
missionaries, NOT to make a scene in church. Those other gifts are too
easy to abuse."

[Christ's Pot of Clay]

On 20 Oct 1997, Anon wrote:
> Paul said "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
> profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in
> righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
> furnished for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16).

Hmm, the NT wasn't written yet, all of the NT were just letters then,
he coulden't have meant it as well could he?

> Therefore, just because Paul says "I say", or teaches something that
> the Lord didn't teach about while He was here on earth, doesn't mean
> that Paul's writings are not the inspired Word of God.

But the fact that he taught things contrary to what Christ did does.

______________________________________________________
[ What would Jesus Do? ]

[Frank Kurucz]

P.WOININ wrote:
>
> If the Catholic church starts to ordain women, it will loose all its
> subtances.
> It would likely disapear but we can have good reasons to believe it will
> never happens.
> If tragically it will, a new church will have to be created where man and
> woman have different functions.

There is one already: The Orthodox Church.

Frank

[Anon]

ZEL...@GSVMS2.CC.GASOU.EDU (BENJAMIN_H. ZELLNER) wrote:

>It's a cultural matter...If your culture will allow females preaching to
>and teaching both sexes (as the New-Testament Greek and Jewish culture
>did not), then do it. But if they won't, don't.

I would like to see one shred of Biblical evidence that the reason
women are prohibited from speaking in church, teaching men, or
usurping the authority over a man is cultural, and not based on God's
purposes and order in creation. There isn't, and to dismiss these
prohibitions on this "cultural" basis, is to allow a principle of
interpretation which, if followed consistantly, would render the
entire Bible irrelevant, since it was all written in the context of
local, cultural situations.

1 Peter 3:1-6 calls on women to submit to their husbands, even those
who are not obedient to the Word of God. It holds up as an example of
"godly" women, a woman who lived 3,000 years before Peter wrote the
Scripture--i.e. Sarah. This proves that women taking the submissive
role pertains not to the culture of Peter's day, but to the timeless
standard of "godliness". Get off this cultural dismissal of clear
Scripture prohibitions of women teaching or holding authority over men
(1 Cor. 1433ff; 1 Tim. 2:11ff.).

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

"P.WOININ" <cd0...@glo.be> writes:

[discussing ordination within Catholic context]
> Man and woman are fundamentaly different in their way of thinking. It is
> fact which can easily be observed in many activities, professions, where
> there is no prejudiced selection to participate.
> Each gender has its role and its merits. Trying to erase the differences
> between them will also weaken the strength of our spiritual life.

How about only ordaining women then? This would preserve the
difference also. After all, the function of ordained priests is to
bring Christ into the world (through the Eucharist). When God first
sent Christ into the world, He chose to do it through a woman, the
Virgin Mary. Shouldn't we follow God's example?

Jayne

[Terry Jones]

Anon, I'm afraid we disagree on many things related to this issue.
Hopefully we can do so in a way that would lead others to Christ and
not away from Him.

[For those new to this thread, I wrote an earlier response
(lines prepended with ">>"), and Anon replied to it
(lines prepended with a ">"). -- terry]

In article <626df8$m...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

> t...@Radon.Stanford.EDU (Terry Jones) wrote:
>>The passage reads as follows:.......
>> The Corinthian church faced many of the same problems that the Ephesian
>> church faced, and therefore similarities exist in understanding this
>> passage and 1 Tim. 2 (see section 6.8).

I noticed that you removed a reference in your response. I think the
reference where Paul allowed for women to pray and prophecy (1 Cor. 11:5)
is important here.

>> ...One way of
>> resolving what some consider a discrepancy is by considering the
>> particular type of speech that Paul disallowed....
>There are only a couple problems with this idea that maybe only
>certain types of communication were prohibited. 1) The type of
>communication which is prohibited is "speech", not just "speaking in
>tongues", or "prophesying".

This actually works against your case. Speaking in tongues and
prophesying *are* forms of speech, and the women are the ones
doing the speaking in tongues and prophesying.

> 2) They were supposed to wait until they

>got home to even ask questions of their husbands. If the prohibition

>of speaking were only during the times of prophesying, or speaking in
>tongues, then why would women have to wait until they get home to
>speak? Why couldn't they just wait until people were done praying and
>prophesying?

The reason is order. This entire passage is about orderly public
worship. If a woman had the floor while speaking in tongues or
prophesying, the body benefited from the move of God. If an unlearned
woman was whispering questions to her husband during the service,
the distraction was detrimental to the body.

>> Clearly this cannot mean that women are
>> forbidden altogether to speak in the assembly (1 Cor. 11:5).
>First of all, why must this passage be referring to praying or
>prophesying in a local church? The passage doesn't say, here, that it
>is. Further, Verse 17 changes the subject with "But in giving this
>instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for
>the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come
>together as a church...."

That's a possibility with the version you're using (RSV). Many
versions make it clear that the context of the entire passage is
public worship. For example, see KJV, NKJV, NIV, TEV, and Jerusalem.

>> The statement "For it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church"
>> has a cultural context: there was a Jewish ordinance requiring women
>> to be silent in assemblies. The Jews would not suffer a woman to read
>> in the synagogue, though a servant or even a child had this permission.

>The entire Bible has a cultural context, and was written in the
>context of local, cultural, contemporary situations. To therefore
>dismiss this passage on the principle that it may have involved
>cultural situations, is to render the entire Bible irrelevant.

For some passages, a correct application of the passage
requires an understanding of the cultural context. There are
several types of issues that arise from cultural setting
when translating a writers meaning. For example, when the
writer addresses an topic important in his day or uses an
illustration meaningful to the historical audience, we may
be ignorant of how to correctly interpret what is being said.
Another important issue arises when we seek to apply
instructions which have a "cultural context". Paul states the
necessity of respecting cultural differences as seen in his
willingness to be "all things to all people" (1 Cor. 9:22).
In matters of etiquette, social conduct for public activities,
dress (i.e. clothes, hair style, jewelry, ...), and the like,
Paul accommodated the norms of wherever he was that he might
win souls to Jesus. (Note that if the the acceptance of man
and the acceptance of God were at odds, the apostles obeyed
God; see Acts 5:29.) Cultural adaptation to present the truth
is a fine principle and has no doubt been instrumental in
winning the souls of countless people, but it does present a
problem: cultural settings change from location to location
and from time to time. We must ask ourselves when reading
Pauls dealings/instructions to people in the first century if
his actions are *accommodation-motivated* that he might
effectively minister to a particular culture; or is it an
*absolute* principle applicable to all mankind for all ages.
For example, how may we interpret Paul's instruction to "greet
one another with a holy kiss" (1 Cor. 16:20)? Most feel this
instruction is an *accommodation-motivated* instruction applicable
to that specific group and time--that it is not an *absolute*
principle for Christians today to always greet one another
with a kiss since the handshake is our accepted greeting of
hospitality. The intent of 1 Cor. 16:20 is to be hospitable
when we meet. In light of this, it is important to understand
the first century Greco-Roman world. Does God's word change
with the time/location -- NO. Do God's principles change
with the time/location -- NO. Does God's messenger adapt to
the culture of whatever time/location they are present in so
that they might advance God's Kingdom -- YES. (1 Cor. 9:22)

>> Some have held this list of qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-13) for church
>> office as a rigid judgment list for disqualifying people. However, since
>> Rom. 16:1 tells us that Phoebe is a deaconess (the same Greek word diakonos
>> is used in both 1 Tim. 3 and Romans 16:1)
>
>This is an extremely weak argument. The word diakonos means "through
>the dust".

Wrong. Diakonis (not diakonos) means "is the dust laboring, or running
through dust." Diako means "hasten, pursue".

>> It would therefore appear
>> that the "husband of one wife" is an *assumption-based* qualification
>> and not a *universal* qualification.

>> It is unlikely
>> that being a male, being married and having children are *universal*
>> qualifications for official roles such as apostle, since Paul himself
>> could not have met two of those three.

>> Paul placed high
>> value on singleness, actually referring to it as a "gift" in 1 Cor. 7:7.
>> Those who argue that being a male is a *universal* qualification for
>> overseers are inconsistent if the do not insist that marriage and
>> parenthood be qualifications--which places them in opposition to
>> 1 Cor. 7.
>
>Rather than "universal" qualification, and "general" qualification, I
>prefer the "stated" qualification, and the "obvious" qualification,
>i.e. that a deacon or overseer is a "he", and that this is so obvious
>that it is just assumed.
>

So by your interpretation the apostle Paul and all of the disciples
are unfit to be Deacons (single men). Interesting.

>> Most individuals and churches who deny women office on
>> the basis of this passage,

>> Paul's principle, then,

>> is not the wearing of veils or the silence of
>> women, but rather conforming to Jewish and moralistic pagan norms for
>> the sake of the gospel. .
>
>No, Paul did what he could, without sinning, to avoid offending people
>when he initially told them the gospel. But, as Acts 15 states, the
>first church counsel, consisting of all the apostles, determined not
>to impose any Jewish "norms" on the churches, other than:
>

This is a *very poor* synopsis of Acts 15. The topic is are
we saved by grace or legalism (Jewish customs). Christianity does
not divorce itself from the OT, or from all Jewish traditions.
The "breaking of bread" is such a tradition. The message of Acts 15
is that we are saved through faith in Christ, not the keeping of any
law (circumcision). The message is emphatically not that Christians
are to dispense with all traditions/cultural norms. Paul saw the
necessity to respect culture when trying to reach people with the Gospel
(read 1 Cor. 9).

>> In biblical times even for a woman to speak
>> publicly was considered a symbol of impropriety. . . .If a woman speaking
>> in the first century was an offense to the people Paul sought to reach,
>> today it is just the reverse. A society that accepts women as corporation
>> executives and university presidents will find it difficult to listen
>> to a church that silences them.
>
>Read 1 Peter 3:1-6.

We are not discussing the roles of a husband and wife.
We are discussing the roles of a woman and the church.

God Bless,
-terry

[Bob King]

Anon wrote:
.......<some snipping>......................

> the entire Bible was written in the context of local,
> cultural situations. To therefore exclude a passage of Scripture on
> the basis it involves contemporary, local situations, renders the
> entire Bible irrelevant.

IMO, you swung the hammer, missed the nail and smashed your thumb here!

Most teaching and study of the Bible ignores its context of local
culture and worldview. It is most unfortunate that the Bible is
usually taken out of that context and presented as universal truth and
God's will for everyone, when, in fact, understanding it requires
consideration of all of the context surrounding it. Much of what is
written in it would be said very differently today. Transporting the
first century worldview, cultural context, and superstition makes it
difficult [impossible for some] to understand what the writers were
really saying.

+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ the internut isn't all it was cracked up to be +
+------------...@airmail.net------------------------+

[Anon]

Bob King <bk...@airmail.net> wrote:

>Anon wrote:
>.......<some snipping>......................
>> the entire Bible was written in the context of local,
>> cultural situations. To therefore exclude a passage of Scripture on
>> the basis it involves contemporary, local situations, renders the
>> entire Bible irrelevant.

>IMO, you swung the hammer, missed the nail and smashed your thumb here!

>Most teaching and study of the Bible ignores its context of local

>culture and worldview....

Well, in 1 Peter 3:1-6, Peter calls on women to submit to their
husbands, obeying them, and putting on a quiet and gentle spirit, even
as Sarah (who lived 3,000 years before Peter was born), obeyed
Abraham, calling him Lord. He calls on these women to behave as the
"godly women of old" behaved. Thus, it is clear from this passage,
that the role of submission for women, was not just a cultural facet
of Paul and Peter's day. It is a timeless standard of "godliness" for
women of all ages.

I'm sending a copy of this to you directly, because for some reason a
lot of my replies to this thread have not been getting through lately.

cc: soc.religion.christian

[P.WOININ]

The following message from Jayne did not appeared on my news server,
but found on Deja-news list:

>How about only ordaining women then?
>This would preserve the difference also.

On the contrary.
A true priest is likely the most manly man,
and the same can be said about the true nun regarding feminity.
If you mix the two, you produce an truncated personality of each
without much meaning left.

> After all, the function of ordained priests
> is to bring Christ into the world (through the Eucharist).

Although the Good Word is strong enough to be efficient
even when expressed by a bad priest,
(recent paedophiles tragedies revealed
we have a few of them going around in Europe.)
a good priest brings also the Christ through his personality.

> When God first sent Christ into the world,
> He chose to do it through a woman, the
> Virgin Mary. Shouldn't we follow God's example?

That is why the Christian world badly needs more
nuns who are behaving as the Virgin Mary.
If they all want to look like Joseph or some Evangelists,
the future will be very dark.

It can be good for women to speak more openly
about their own spirituality, and they do.
However those listening must remain aware
that there is fundamental difference sustaining
the words expressed.

For the moment I would describe these differences
with this figure: If we consider our life in this world
as a travel from unconsciousness to an intimate knowledge
of things to come, we can call it paradise,
the man's role is to speak about departure, or going further,
the woman's part is to evoke the arrival, the objective.
You cannot dissociate the two,
but if you reverse the functions,
the risk is to have a world going backward.

Pierre

[kdow...@apk.net]

Some support women's ordination with "There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye
are all one in Christ Jesus."[Gal 3:28]. They confuse equality with
uniformity of function. Saint Paul describes diversity of function
within the equality of the Church: "For by one Spirit are we all
Baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be
bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because
I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the
body? [1Cor 13-15] "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles,
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts
of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all
apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of
miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do
all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto
you a more excellent way."[1 Cor 12:28-31] One must not covet a ministry
that is different from the ministry that has been given.
As stated in 1 Corinthians 12:15, one must not leave the Body of Christ
because one has not been given the ministry one prefers.

While this does not mention gender, it does indicate that there are
limitations to individual ministries. Throughout his letters, Saint
Paul documents several of those limitations, for example: "A Bishop then
must be blameless, the husband of one wife, ..."[1Tim 3:2] He also
states: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over
the man, but to be in silence."[1Tim 2:12] This may seem like an attempt
to demean women, but Saint Paul also says: "And those members of the
body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more
abundant honour." [1 Cor 12:23] Difference of function is not to be a
difference of honor. Equal dignity is to be given to all for all that
are of the body of Christ. The belief that ordination is a sign of
higher honor is an error: it sets the clergy above those they are to
serve. It also demeans the ministries of those who are not clergy such
as the Virgin Mary, the Birthgiver of God.

There are various new interpretations for the Scriptures supporting
ordination of women to the Priesthood, but the issue was settled
officially in the late second century. The Montanists had instituted
such ordinations. Montanus, the founder of the movement, claimed to
speak for the Holy Spirit. He demonstrated his authority by various
wonders including levitation. Finally he was dropped to his death by the
unseen demonic forces which had used him to delude his followers.
Subsequently the Montanist movement began to dissolve, but it survived
in schism until after the Fourth Century. The images of Montanist
presbytides (women priests) which are used to support the belief that
the ancient Church ordained women are from that period. Local Councils
reaffirmed Tradition by rejecting ordination of women as counter to the
teaching of the Holy Spirit. Ecumenical Councils accepted the findings
of the Local Councils in this matter.

Claims by individuals or movements to speak for, or interpret the wishes
of, the Holy Spirit and to change Church Tradition are still viewed as
invalid. The view that the mood of the times is the voice of the Holy
Spirit is also invalid because it either denies our free will or reduces
God's thought to a reflection of our own.

Fr. Maelruain
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3374

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

t...@Radon.Stanford.EDU (Terry Jones) writes:

[RE: 1 Cor 14:34,35]

> The reason is order. This entire passage is about orderly public
> worship. If a woman had the floor while speaking in tongues or
> prophesying, the body benefited from the move of God. If an unlearned
> woman was whispering questions to her husband during the service,
> the distraction was detrimental to the body.

It is possible that women did not sit next to their husbands during
worship, since the early Church seems to have adapted much of its
practice from Judaism. If one reads the OT descriptions of the Temple,
one can see that there were different areas for men and women. To this
day, Orthodox Jews have separate sections in their synagogues. If the
church at Corinth worshipped in this way, then it is not a question of
women whispering but of them shouting across the room to ask their
husbands questions. Either way, your point remains valid, that Paul
wanted them to wait until later because their questions were
disruptive.

I'm impressed with how knowldegeable you are about this topic, Terry.
(And the care you take to discuss it charitably.) You seem to have
studied it very thoroughly, rather than gathering a few proof verses
and then deciding you don't have time for more. You come across as a
person who is very serious about seeking God's will in Scripture.

Sometimes I get the feeling that men who want women "silent in Church"
are simply defending their authority rather than trying to follow God.
I know of a church in which the elders made the decision to purchase a
new piano without consulting the pianist, presumably because that
would be giving authority to a woman. They ended up with a poorer
quality piano than they started with, paid more money than it was
worth, and so upset the pianist that she quit.

When men focus on leadership as power and authority, of course women
react with resentment and a sense of injustice. Jesus clearly
rejected this kind of leadership and instructed his followers to do
so. If we truly were following Jesus' example of leadership as
service, I doubt that many people would much care if women were
ordained or not.

Jayne

[Katie]

In <62rolm$c...@geneva.rutgers.edu> kdow...@apk.net writes:

>body? [1Cor 13-15] "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles,
>secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts
>of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all
>apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of
>miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do
>all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto
>you a more excellent way."[1 Cor 12:28-31] One must not covet a ministry

But aren't almost all of the functions listed reserved for men if one
takes a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Men: apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle workers, healers,
governments, tongues
Women: miracle workers, healers, helps

It doesn't seem equitable to me. Women are limited with the functions
they can serve, while men have endless possiblities. I favor the belief
that Paul's letters must be thought of in the context of culture.
Paul's letters were just that -- letters written for a specific audience,
even addressed to the specific audience at the beginning of the letters.
If he wrote to a church today his letter would be much different. I
love the steps that have been made as far as women's ordination. Many
have mentioned that women and men are different. That's true and that's
why women bring another perspective to leadership, to the Bible, and to
the role of the Church.

Katie
--
Katie Abendroth kabe...@iastate.edu
Homepage http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kabendro/
Women in Science http://www.suite101.com/topics/page.cfm/458
Bio/Zoo/Gen Club http://www.public.iastate.edu/~stu_org/BioZooGen/
181.4 DftN! Music http://www.181-4.com/
Project BIO http://project.bio.iastate.edu/
Cyclone Fever http://www.public.iastate.edu/~doctor42/cyclone_fever/

[P.WOININ]

In answer to a remark on 1 Cor 14:34,35

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
> Sometimes I get the feeling that men who want women "silent in Church"
> are simply defending their authority rather than trying to follow God.

.....

> When men focus on leadership as power and authority,
> of course women react with resentment and a sense of injustice.
> Jesus clearly rejected this kind of leadership
> and instructed his followers to do so.
> If we truly were following Jesus' example of leadership as service,
> I doubt that many people would much care
> if women were ordained or not.

Jayne is right if the ordination of men would only about a question
of power and authority.
The example given regarding the contempt for a woman's compentence
illustrates a stupid abuse of power by whoever is in charge.

However, if the Catholic church has separate functions for men and women,
it less a question of leadership than to safeguard what Jung called
'archetypes', essential shared values which, if they are positive, are
indispensable for the progress of humanity, if they are not already badly
needed for its survival.

I joined this group by suggesting another study of God's will: an
exponential demography so that the greatest possible number of souls will
have the opportunity to participate in His creation.
Nobody reacted to this, and I realize that the challenges will be
tremendous if hundreds of billion more have to share the earth. But the
recent genocides, for instance in central Africa, show us that these
challenges will be much more spiritual (also to solve social problems) than
technical.

Strong archetypes will be needed to protect and to direct the future of
humanity. The 20th century hardly recognized their existence, but failed to
study them further, and we are now risking to neglect them again. For
instance good and bad archetypes are present in each movie, but how many
movie makers are aware of the tremendous influence they have on the public,
and on the mind of young children?

For many it seems that some churches are fighting a rear guard action to
defend obsolete values. I prefer to believe that in fact they are building
the strongest vectors able to support the further developments of mankind.

Best wishes to all readers,
Pierre

[Katie]

In <62haho$3...@geneva.rutgers.edu> an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

>I would like to see one shred of Biblical evidence that the reason
>women are prohibited from speaking in church, teaching men, or
>usurping the authority over a man is cultural, and not based on God's

How about that the prohibitions against speaking in church, teaching
men, and usurping authority over men come from letters to specific
churches at a certain time. That's why it's cultural.

[kdow...@apk.net]

Katie wrote:

> It doesn't seem equitable to me. Women are limited with the functions
> they can serve, while men have endless possiblities.

If "equitable" meant anything in this discussion then "all" people would
be called to "all" ministries. God loves us all, but bestows diverse
gifts. Some of those gifts may even seem to be limitations.

Yes, Saint Paul is speaking from a cultural perspective. That cultural
perspective in Christianity. It allows some diversity in expression: in
the language and form used, but never the substance. Where there has
been doubt due to that diversity, Councils of Bishops representing many
different cultures met and stated what the unique Christian culture had
to say on the matter. Some of the statements were Theological. Others
were regarding practice.

On the matter of ordination of women to the Priesthood, the Councils
simply said "No".

Pax Christi.
Fr. Maelruain, Cele De

I favor the belief
> that Paul's letters must be thought of in the context of culture.
> Paul's letters were just that -- letters written for a specific audience,
> even addressed to the specific audience at the beginning of the letters.
> If he wrote to a church today his letter would be much different. I
> love the steps that have been made as far as women's ordination. Many
> have mentioned that women and men are different. That's true and that's
> why women bring another perspective to leadership, to the Bible, and to
> the role of the Church.
>
> Katie

[James Adrian van Wyk]

Katie wrote:

SNIP SNIP

>
> But aren't almost all of the functions listed reserved for men if one
> takes a literal interpretation of the Bible.
>
> Men: apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle workers, healers,
> governments, tongues

Philip's daughters were prophetesses.
Phoebe was a deacon.

> Women: miracle workers, healers, helps
>

> It doesn't seem equitable to me. Women are limited with the functions

> they can serve, while men have endless possiblities. I favor the belief

> that Paul's letters must be thought of in the context of culture.
> Paul's letters were just that -- letters written for a specific audience,
> even addressed to the specific audience at the beginning of the letters.
> If he wrote to a church today his letter would be much different. I
> love the steps that have been made as far as women's ordination. Many
> have mentioned that women and men are different. That's true and that's
> why women bring another perspective to leadership, to the Bible, and to
> the role of the Church.
>
> Katie

SNIP

The culture and circumstances went against womer, in many rolls, plus
Paul was ttrying to evangalize the World, on an expedite basis.
Read the last parts, of each epistle, where Paul salutrs his friends, in
Christ's work, many give a picture, different than Paul's general
instructions. Also a few other places in the Epistles. Also 2 John
seems to be written to a woman church leader. There aparently were
exceptions, to the rule.

javw

[Anon]

kabe...@iastate.edu (Katie) wrote:

>In <62haho$3...@geneva.rutgers.edu> an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

>>I would like to see one shred of Biblical evidence that the reason
>>women are prohibited from speaking in church, teaching men, or
>>usurping the authority over a man is cultural, and not based on God's

>How about that the prohibitions against speaking in church, teaching
>men, and usurping authority over men come from letters to specific
>churches at a certain time. That's why it's cultural.

What Biblical evidence is there that any given passage applies only to
the culture of it's day? Nice try, but the entire Bible was written
to specific people of God, at certain times. To dismiss passages
which conflict with one's views based on this principle alone, is to

render the entire Bible irrelevant.

Further, every reason given in the context of passages which prohibit
women from teaching or holding authority over men is blatently
non-cultural:

You have a passage where Peter calls the "submission", "obedience",
and "quiet spirit" of women, a standard of "godliness" and "holiness".
He uses, as an example of this, one of the "holy women of old",
Sarah, who lived 3,000 years before his time (1 Pet. 3:1-6). This
principle of roles of submission for women is clearly a standard of
"godliness", and "holiness", and is not a standard of "culture".

The overwhelming mass of Biblical data presents men as God's
agents of authority on earth. God is a male. Christ is a man. All
the books of the Bible were written by men. All the OT covenants were
made with men (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David). Families are always
reckoned under the headship of men. Men are put in charge of the
Levitical worship system. The kings of Israel were always men. The
apostles were all men. This overwhelming mass of data establishes
male leadership as God's standard.

In the epistle which is specifically written for the purpose of giving
instructions on the qualifications for church offices, and roles of
people in the church, 1 Tim. 2:11ff. plainly states that women are not
permitted to teach, or hold authority over a man. I quote the summary
statement in 3:15:

"...but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one
ought to conduct himself in the household of God [not the culture of
today], which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support
of the truth. And by common confession great is the mystery of
godliness [not cultural hipness] ;..."

What Paul has just written is expressly stated as an instruction on
how to conduct yourself in the House of God [not according to the
culture of the day], and this is explained as a principle of
"godliness" [not culture].

To prove that the reasons given in each passage which prohibits women
from teaching, or exercising authority over men, are based on timeless
standards of God's nature and godliness, and not on culture, consider
the following reasons which the passages give for the prohibition, and
then show one bit of evidence from the same passages, that these
reasons are invalid, and only cultural:

* "God is not a God of confusion, but of order" [not "God is a God of
today's culture"] (1 Cor. 14:33),

* "the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord" [not
"popular culture"] (1 Cor. 14:37),

* "whoever does not recognize this is not recognized" (1 Cor. 14:38),

* God created Adam chief" ["protos" is used repeatedly throughout the
NT, to denote being first both in time and rank] (1 Tim. 2:13),

* "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite
deceived, fell into transgression." (1 Tim. 2:14),

* "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head
of the church" [not "as the culture of the day suggests] (Eph. 5:23),

* "But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to
be to their husbands in everything." [equated with Christ's timeless
relation to the church, not the culture of the day] (Eph. 5:24),

* "Wives be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord" [not
"as is fitting in today's culture] (Colossians 3:18),

* "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your husbands so that
even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won
without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your
chaste and respectful behavior [salvation of husband, and not culture,
is in view here]. And let not your adornment be merely
external--brading the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on
dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the
IMPERISHABLE [this quality is not contemporary, or limited to the
culture of the day, but is "imperishable", emphasis mine] quality of a
gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God [not
"the culture of our day"]. For in this way in former times the HOLY
[not "culturally hip"] women also, who hoped in God, [not who kept the
culture of the day], used to adorn themselves, being submissive to
their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and
you havee become her children if you do what is right [not culturally
hip, but "right"] without being frightened by any fear." (1 Peter
3:1-6).

Now, will you contend, for the record, that the reasons for these
instructions are merely cultural, and apply only to the day in which
they were written? When you dismiss such passages as being only
cultural, and not applying to today, are you not distorting their
express declarations? The reasons given in the passages which
prohibit women from teaching or exercising authority over men has
nothing to do with the culture of Paul's or Peter's day, and
everything to do with timeless standards of "godliness". Otherwise,

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

kabe...@iastate.edu (Katie) writes:

> In <62haho$3...@geneva.rutgers.edu> an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:
>
>>I would like to see one shred of Biblical evidence that the reason
>>women are prohibited from speaking in church, teaching men, or
>>usurping the authority over a man is cultural, and not based on God's
>
> How about that the prohibitions against speaking in church, teaching
> men, and usurping authority over men come from letters to specific
> churches at a certain time. That's why it's cultural.

While I agree with your reasoning, Katie, I don't think this is what
Anon is looking for. He probably wants a specific passage as evidence.
I suggest that I Cor 11: 2-16 is such a passage. I will quote it in
part:

"For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her
hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let
her wear a veil. . . . Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman
to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach
you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a
woman has long hair it is her pride?"

Paul is asking rhetorical questions here. It is clear that he expects
his readers to say "yes, it is disgraceful for women to have short
hair" "no, it is not proper to pray with her head uncovered" "yes,
nature teaches us that women should have long hair." However, in our
culture, none of these answers are correct. There is nothing
disgraceful about short hair or praying with one's head uncovered.
There is no question that Paul's instruction for women to wear a veil
while praying and prophesying is culturally based.

It is equally clear that Paul does not acknowledge it as culturallly
based. He justifies his instruction by appealing to tradition (v 2),
Scripture (vv 7,8), and Nature (v 14). This passage proves that Paul
gives culture-specific teachings while not identifying them as such.

Furthermore, since this same passage touches on authority issues (v 3
- "the head of a woman is her husband") this indicates that Paul's
comments on women and authority are likely to be affected by his
culture.

This does not mean that we should ignore everything that Paul has to
say about women. Rather, we must study and pray to discern what it
means for us in our culture. The Bible is God's Word and speaks to us
today. It is a gift, but one that demands a commitment from us. We
should not expect "cheap grace".

Jayne

----

[Look at 1 Cor 11:16. I understand this as acknowledging that the
basis of this is custom. --clh]

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

"P.WOININ" <cd0...@glo.be> writes:

[]

> However, if the Catholic church has separate functions for men and women,
> it less a question of leadership than to safeguard what Jung called
> 'archetypes', essential shared values which, if they are positive, are
> indispensable for the progress of humanity, if they are not already badly
> needed for its survival.

[]

The functions have been separated in such a way that men have had
significantly more power than women. This imbalance is a bad thing.
The power has been abused. This is not changed by talking of
archetypes or by recognizing priesthood was never supposed to be about
power. Wrong has been done and needs to be redressed. I'm just not
sure how. I'm not convinced that ordaining women is the solution, but
I'm not convinced by the arguments I've seen against it either.

If we consider archetypes, as you suggest, this is not a strong
argument against ordaining women. Jung saw Mary's role in Catholicism
as providing a divine female archetype. This way of putting it
contradicts Catholic teaching, but we certainly have the idea that God
embraces both female and male aspects. Catholic teaching is very clear
that God created us, men and women, in the image of God. (And
according to Jung, we all have both aspects - animus and anima.)

Nor can we justify male priesthood on the grounds that the priest acts
"in persona Christi." Christ is fully human and fully divine. In his
human nature he is male, but Christ's divine nature is female and
male. Indeed, when Jesus instituted the sacrament of Ordination at the
Last Supper, he spoke of himself using female imagery. When he said "I
am the vine" he echoed the Psalmist's description of a wife as a
fruitful vine.

Women and men may be different, but in regards to salvation, they are
similar. Men and women were created in the image of God. Men and women
have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Men and women have
been redeemed by Christ's sacrifice. Should not these truths be
expressed by having priests who are men and women?

Jayne

[Anon]

jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
wrote:

>"For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her

>hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let
>her wear a veil. . . . Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman
>to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach
>you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a
>woman has long hair it is her pride?"

>Paul is asking rhetorical questions here. It is clear that he expects
>his readers to say "yes, it is disgraceful for women to have short
>hair" "no, it is not proper to pray with her head uncovered" "yes,
>nature teaches us that women should have long hair." However, in our
>culture, none of these answers are correct.

And in the culture of head hunters, Biblical prohibitions on murder
and vengeance are not correct. God's will for His people is what
determines their culture. Their culture is not what determines God's
will. You've got it backwards.

>[Look at 1 Cor 11:16. I understand this as acknowledging that the
>basis of this is custom. --clh]

My NAS translates, "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have
no other practice, nor have the churches of God."

cc: soc.religion.christian
jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

[]

> The overwhelming mass of Biblical data presents men as God's
> agents of authority on earth. God is a male.

Genesis clearly shows that God is male and female and the reason that
humans are made this way is because we are made in the image of God.
The Hebrew word for God, "elohim," is a plural that includes masculine
and feminine gender. The words for law of God, spirit of God, and
wisdom of God are all in the feminine gender and described with female
imagery. The Biblical data that God is not only male is overwhelming.

> Christ is a man.

In his human nature Christ is a man. His nature is also divine, which
includes the female, as explained above.

> All
> the books of the Bible were written by men.

We don't know whom all the books of the Bible were written by. There
has been speculation that Hebrews was written by a woman.

> All the OT covenants were
> made with men (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David).

The covenant with Abraham was also with Sarah. This is why the son of
Hagar could not inherit. One sign of the covenant was that Abram and
Sarai were *both* instructed to change their names.

Also, the account of the midwives in Exodus describes a covenantal
relationship (although the term covenant is not explicitly stated).
Shiphrah and Puah feared God and God blessed them with families. This
is much the way the covenant with Abraham and Sarah is described.

> Families are always
> reckoned under the headship of men.

Acts 16 relates the story of the conversion of Lydia, a
businesswoman. She was baptized with all her household. This
parallels the accounts of conversion of male heads of households.

> Men are put in charge of the
> Levitical worship system.

Miriam led the people in worship. The Song of Miriam is used in
Jewish worship to this day which is more than we can say for the
Levitical system.

> The kings of Israel were always men.

And one of those kings, Josiah, accepted the word of God that came to
him through the prophetess, Huldah. Because he accepted her authority
it was written of him, "Before him there was no king like him, who
turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with
all his might, according to the law of Moses; nor did any like him
arise after him." (2 Kings 23:25)

You left out the period when Israel was led by judges. Perhaps
because you recall that Deborah was a judge, prophetess and even
leader in battle.

> The
> apostles were all men.

The apostle to the apostles was Mary Magdalene, first witness of the
resurrection, first to bear the Good News.

> This overwhelming mass of data establishes
> male leadership as God's standard.

The mass of data establishes that Biblical events took place in a male
dominated culture in which female leadership was exceptional.
Nevertheless, these exceptions took place, showing us that God does
use female leaders to fulfill God's will. How much more should they be
used now that we are in a culture that is more accepting of female
leadership?

I think I have already addressed your other points in my post in
response to Katie.

Jayne

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

> jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
> wrote:

[quote from I Cor 11 snipped]

>>Paul is asking rhetorical questions here. It is clear that he expects
>>his readers to say "yes, it is disgraceful for women to have short
>>hair" "no, it is not proper to pray with her head uncovered" "yes,
>>nature teaches us that women should have long hair." However, in our
>>culture, none of these answers are correct.
>
> And in the culture of head hunters, Biblical prohibitions on murder
> and vengeance are not correct. God's will for His people is what
> determines their culture. Their culture is not what determines God's
> will. You've got it backwards.

You appear to be saying that Paul's comments about veils and hair
length still apply to us today. Do you believe that it is God's will
for all cultures that women have long hair and be veiled when praying?
Such a belief is the logical consequence of your method of
interpretting Scripture.

You asked if there was a passage in which Paul's teaching was based on
culture. By almost anyone's standards I Cor 11 fits this criterion.
However, your response to it indicates that you refuse to accept that
it is possible for a teaching to be based on culture.

Jayne

[James A. Sledd]

I think the ordination of women is a good thing. I have particular
experience of the ordination of a woman. She worked hard for many years
against the establishment and church heirarchy to be ordained, and
appointed pastor to a small church. The church appointed 5 seperate
men to the position over a period of 10-12 years. All of them failed in
one way or another to lead the church. This woman has succeeded where
all the men failed, She is now in her 12th or 13th year as preist and
minister to her congregation. Who is to say she would have been so
successful if she had not to struggle to attain any recognition? Either
way, she felt the call and came. This is not a person who is naturally
politic, not a natural pastor the way some are. As a matter of fact she
can be quite abrasive.
It is because God wants her to serve this church that she is there. Or
at least so I beleive. =) For those with open minds and hearts,
situations like these are clear indication of the will of God in these
matters.

Of course who am I to say the Pope wears a funny hat?

How do I reconcile this disconnect? It's a big world out there. Things
are constantly changing. Stable long term institutions
that are (highly) resistant to change can serve God, even as those
who are pushing for change serve God too.

Sometimes God's will is at work on both sides of the fence.

--

James Sledd
email: jsl...@ssc.upenn.edu http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/~jsledd
phone: (215) 898 6744 fax: (215) 898 7769

[SFWhite]

> Seanna Watson:
> So in order to justify not ordaining women, one would have to prove
> that there is an inherent difference between men and women that has
> a bearing on their relationship to God - either that the obvious
> physical differences are significant, or that there is something
> else that makes a difference.

SFW:
Hi, Seanna,
Male/female differences are for the benefit of our relating to each
other, not God. Each personality type completes the other. God gave
woman to man to help man.

>From what I've noted, man needs woman's example to better illustrate how
he's to relate to God. Men have a tendency to tramp around being "Lords
of the Earth", an altogether puffed-up perspective. How can an attitude
like this be productive in man's relationship with his Creator?

Through God's Grace, man received woman. Ideally, hers is a gentle
spirit that is unafraid to sublimate her ego and humble herself out of
love. Woman puts her faith in the justice of Love. For this reason,
she can be easily deceived, but that doesn't lessen the value of her
trust.

How many men can comfortably make this classically feminine statement:
"They won't harm me because I love them and they love me"? This is a
statement of Faith, and its validity relies on a belief in the strength
of the Love of another.

Isn't this how we're supposed to relate to God? Didn't Jesus say so?
What saves us? Faith alone. Faith in Whom, through a belief in what?
Faith in Jesus as our Lord and Saviour, through belief in His Love for
us and the Truth of His Word. Man's only salvation is realized through
his having Faith.

Who exemplifies Faith most readily in their daily living? Woman. Why
does logical, proof-oriented man need woman? Isn't example the easiest
way of learning?

Jesus is Lord -- SFW

|||._.-._.|||._.-._.|||._.-._.|||._.-._.|||._.-._.|||._.-._.|||._.-._.|||

[James Adrian van Wyk]

Anon wrote:

SNIP

> >Galatians 3? But of course you have bent the issue so as to assure
> >your own immunity to effective reply, by use of the word "usurping".
>
> Now, now, no reason to start ad-hominem attacks.

That was not an ad-hominem attack. The poster was pointing out you
debate techniques.

BIG SNIPS
>
> >This is rank nonsense. Obviously the Bible was written in the context
> >of local, cultural situations. Does that in any way imply that it is
> >not a locus of divine inspiration? No. Does that in any way imply
> >that its direct instruction is not applicable to you and I? No. So
> >in what sense is the Bible then irrelevant? The Bible was written
> >in the context of the human situation, and as such is relevant to all
> >humans.

> I agree. That is my point exactly.

Your next statements show you don't fully agree. You are implying
claims, that are not made, and do not neccessarily follow, or just plain
don't follow. You attach, by implication, straw men, to peoples ideas
and posts, and then attack their ideas, by attacking the straw men, of
your own creation. Examples follow. No one claimed that any passage
doesn't apply, rather that passages cannot be applied superficially. To
apply the underlying principle, rather than the specific practices, does
not equate to a passage not applying.

But when someone claims that a
> passage does not apply to us, just because it was written to a
> specific local church in Paul's day, where a different culture may
> have existed, then they are promoting a principle of interpretation
> which effectively renders the entire Bible irrelevant, since the
> entire Bible was written in the context of local, cultural situations,
> to specific individuals, at specific times.

The point, is the opposite is true. By understanding the Bible within
the context, of the cultures it came from, and by understanding passages
in the larger context, of scripture, understanding what underlies the
passages, and then applying them, to our own place and time, We render
them relevant. You have it backwards what makes the Bible relevant or
irrelevant.

GOD seeks people, where they are. We need to also.

javw

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

[]
> If Galatians 3 means there is no
> distinction of roles between saved people, then parents would no
> longer have any authority over their children.

Galatians 3 does not say anything about parents and children. It does
not show that men having authority over women is parallel to parents
having authority over children. Rather, men having authority over
women is parallel to Jews having authority over Gentiles (the heresy
of the Judaizers.)

Gal 3:28 refers to three specific areas of division that were the main
causes of tension in the early Church -- male/female, slave/free,
Jew/Gentile. (This is yet another case where knowing the cultural
context makes the meaning of Scripture easier to apply to today's
situations. I see this passage as having bearing on the current
tension in the Church between "left" and "right".)

People of this time had a tendency to think of one group as superior
to another and Paul was correcting this error. Most of the epistle to
the Galatians focusses on their error of thinking that Jewish
believers were superior to Gentile believers. Gal 3:28 points out that
the situation between Jews and Gentiles is the same as that between
free and slaves and that between men and women. In Christ these
distinctions do not matter.

Now there are distinctions of roles between saved people. Scripture
has several lists of the differing gifts and ministries that
distinguish us. However, none of these lists include a role of being
male and a role of being female. There is Scriptural grounds for
seeing husband and wife as being different roles, but Paul's
instructions about husbands and wives (they should submit to each
other) have little to do with the question of ordaining women.

Jayne

[FirstCor1]

For an answer to evangelical feminism, check out:

COUNCIL ON BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD
http://www.cbmw.org

[Anon]

Some are arguing that the prohibition of women teaching men, or
holding authority over men, was part of the culture of Bible days, and
so the Biblical instructions about it apply only to that age. They
say that since today's culture permits women teaching men, and holding
authority over them, then that means today, it is proper in the church
as well.

If we are going to follow this principle of reasoning, I would point
out that in the culture of head hunters, Biblical prohibitions on
murder and vengeance are not customary, so if you establish a church
among headhunters, they must be permitted to continue taking vengeance
and people's heads. If a culture is immoral, then if you establish a
church among the immoral, Biblical prohibitions against immorality no
longer apply, and it is permitted to conduct one's self immorally in
church.

But you see, people's culture does not set the standard for God's will
in their life. Rather, God's will for the believer's life is what
sets the standard for their culture. Culture is "...ways of
living..." (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary). The Bible calls
believers "out of" (ekklasia) the world, to become part of His new
creation, the church (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2 - 3). God repeatedly
calls on these believers to put off their "former way of life"
(Ephesians 4-5; Collossians 3, etc.), and to put on the new ways of
righteousness in Christ (Romans 6:1-11; 12; etc.).

It was the way of life, or "culture", of the people in the book of
Genesis (chapter 6), to practice and think only evil continually. Did
this make that culture right, just because it was the way everyone
lived? No. God sent the flood, and wiped man off the face of the
earth.

It was the culture of Sodom and Gomorrah, for the males from every
qaurter of the city to approach male visitors, and force them to have
homosexual relations. Does that mean that this way of life, or
culture was God's will for that specific time? Absolutely not. God
destroyed the cities with fire and brimstone, and they remain level
ground of asphalt to this day.

In the culture of the day of the Judges, it was a culture where "every
man did what was right in his own eyes". Does that mean that it was
God's will for His people of that day to do what was right in their
own eyes? No. He sent nations to afflict them, and turn them to Him.

During the age of kings, the culture became more and more "liberated"
in worshipping idols. Does this mean it was therefore God's will for
His people to worship idols? No. He sent them away captive to
Assyria and Babylonia, for worshipping idols.

Idol worship was also part of the culture in Thessalonica, in the NT
church era. Was idol worship therefore appropriate in their culture?
No. He commends them for turning to God from idols, to serve the
living God (1 Thess. 1:10).

2 Timothy says that in the last days, men will be lovers of self,
lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents,
ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips,
without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless,
conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God...etc. Does
that mean that since it will become the culture of their day, that
such conduct will therefore become God's will for their life, and that
His people of that day will therefore no longer be under Biblical
standards for morality? No. The following verses say their folly
will become obvious to all, as it did to those who practiced such
things during the time of Moses (2 Timothy 3). The man of God is
rather to follow the teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience,
love, perseverance, etc., which Paul showed.

The Bible repeatedly calls the believer to put away his former "way of
life", and to put on the new ways of Christ. Culture does not
determine God's will for believers. God's will determines what
believer's ways, or culture should be.

Besides, if the prohibition for women teaching or holding authority
over men was because of the culture of Paul's day, as those who think
women should teach men because of today's culture say, then why did
Paul even have to mention it to them, since they would already have
known the supposed "culture" of their day? The prohibitions for women
teaching and holding authority over men are not the ways or culture of
Paul's day, they are the ways or culture of the NT church, which is
saved out of the ways of the world.

[Anon]

jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
wrote:

>> And in the culture of head hunters, Biblical prohibitions on murder

>> and vengeance are not correct. God's will for His people is what
>> determines their culture. Their culture is not what determines God's
>> will. You've got it backwards.

>You appear to be saying that Paul's comments about veils and hair
>length still apply to us today. Do you believe that it is God's will
>for all cultures that women have long hair and be veiled when praying?
>Such a belief is the logical consequence of your method of
>interpretting Scripture.

This seems kind of like one of those "when did you stop beating your
wife?" questions. I'll answer your question, but let's not get
distracted from the passages which actually deal with the prohibition
of women teaching or holding authority over men, in the process. I've
furnished about a dozen clear verses, in the immediate context of the
passages where the prohibitions occur, which give timeless standards
as reasons. I asked for one shred of evidence (from those passages),
which proves that the prohibitions were only cultural, and which
somehow invalidates the multiple clear, non-cultural reasons. This
passage in 1 Cor. 11 isn't dealing with these prohibitions, and
whether or not you agree with my interpretation of this passage may
only serve as a distraction from the data which actually bears on the
subject.

One possible understanding of this passage is that women's long hair
is given to them for a covering (15b). Yes, I believe women should
wear long hair, and that the instructions for them to cover their head
with their long hair, in this passage, is a timeless principle for
women of all ages. Others would hold a more literal understanding,
and say this means women should also wear hats. There are groups of
believers who still practice this today. Even if it is not a popular
view, though, it's right if the Bible teaches it. And even if it is a
popular view, it's wrong if the Bible doesn't. Also, only if one
teaches it is necessary to keep these commands in order to merit
salvation, or sustain salvation, can one accurately be called a
legalist. The instructions are not what we must do to get or stay
saved, but what we should do since we are saved.

But let not this passage distract from the issue. I have furnished
about a dozen verses, from within the immediate context of the
passages where the prohibitions of women teaching men occur, which
clearly state they are based on God's nature, will, design, and on the
timeless principles of "holiness", and "godliness". Where is one bit
of evidence from within the same prohibition passages, which state
they are only cultural, and that they do not apply to any other age
than the one in which they were written?

>You asked if there was a passage in which Paul's teaching was based on
>culture. By almost anyone's standards I Cor 11 fits this criterion.
>However, your response to it indicates that you refuse to accept that
>it is possible for a teaching to be based on culture.

Again, I have never said culture has no influence on the
interpretation of a passage. But I trust some will have to see that
the principle of interpretation which reasons such things as, "The
Bible was written thousands of years ago, to specific
people"...."there was a different culture thousands of years
ago"....therefore Biblical instructions apply only to the people to
whom the Bible was originally written", potentially renders the entire
Bible irrelevant, and subject to the whims of the interpreter. If we
are to follow this line of reasoning, one might conclude that
salvation is not now being offered to you, because it wasn't written
to you, but to people who lived in a different culture, or because
your name is not in the passage, etc. You determine from the context
of the passage, whether or not the instructions directly apply, or
whether they apply only in principle. I have furnished a dozen or so
verses from the immediate context of the passages where the
prohibitions occur, which give such non-cultural reasons as the fact
that: God is a God of order, not confusion (1 Cor. 14:33), these
things are the commands of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37), God made Adam
"chief" (1 Tim. 2:11ff.), but the woman, being deceived, fell into
transgression (ibid.), these things are written so that you might know
how to behave yourself in the house of God, great is the mystery of
"godliness" (1 Tim. 3:15), submission and obedience is a standard of
"holiness" and "godliness", for women throughout the ages (1 Peter
3:1-6), etc.

Now where are these supposed "cultural" verses, which render all these
other timeless reasons for the prohibition irrelevant? I don't think
you can show it from the Bible, and that you will therefore continue
to see just circular reasoning, based on the extra-Biblical, pseudo
principle of interpretation, which basically says the entire Bible
means what culture says it means, and nothing more.

[James A. Sledd]

Anon (an...@anon.com) wrote:

: I asked for one shred of evidence (from those passages),

: which proves that the prohibitions were only cultural, and which
: somehow invalidates the multiple clear, non-cultural reasons.

Hows this: That it be given by Paul.

Paul was not writing down a direct revelation from the Lord as
instructed (as revelations). Paul was not a prophet in the old
testament sense. Paul was not the son of God. Do you have a bible with
"the words of Jesus in red". I think they are fairly common, check one
out. IMHO you can take the parts that aren't in red, and regard them as
cultural. Don't get me wrong, I think that these scriptures (words) are
God inspired writings, just not rigid instructions to be accepted
as given for all time.

My favorite passage in the bible is when the big J is rebuked for
eating grain in the fields on the sabbath.

It aint the rules that matter, the rules are instructions for right
living. It's the right living that matters.

If you beleive that right living requires that no woman have authority
over man, that is your choice.

I beleive that if a woman has something to say that I need to hear,
let her speak.

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

"P.WOININ" <cd0...@glo.be> writes:

[charming compliment snipped -- Thank you]

> By reading her messages I understood that J.Kulikauskas is a catholic,
> please correct if I am wrong.

Yes, I am Roman Catholic.

> I try to be catholic myself, but perhaps of a strange kind at the same time
> ultra conservative and ultra progressist, but not progressist in the mood
> of the time.
[]

I think it is usual that thoughtful people do not fit well into the
commom left/right divisions. I consider it a mark in your favour that
you do not label yourself as either conservative or progressive.
Neither do I.

> Let us go back to what Jayne says:
> ....> The power has been abused.

>> This is not changed by talking of archetypes
>> or by recognizing priesthood was never supposed
>> to be about power.
>> Wrong has been done and needs to be redressed.

> Perhaps, but here we not exactly dealing with the same thing.
> Janey evokes past and present problems,
> I want to preserve the building blocks of the future.
> Probably our approaches will finally converge as priests can
> improve themselves if they pay attention to the complains of Jayne.

I am concerned that priesthood has developed to be focussed on power
rather than on service. I am also disturbed that so many of the laity
do not take responsibility for their own spirituality. All Christians
by their baptism share in Christ's roles of prophet, priest and
servant-king. Rather than do the work we are called to do, we tend to
leave it to "professional religious people."

I consider these problems to be so serious that the question of
women's ordination is insignifcant by comparison. I suspect that
ordaining women at this time will actually make these problems worse.
Therfore, I am in no hurry to see women ordained as RC priests. On
the other hand, I have not been convinced by any of the arguments that
I have seen that claim that women should never be ordained.

>>..Jung saw Mary's role in Catholicism as providing
>> a divine female archetype.
> More or less, but I read a lot of Jung and never perceived
> that he wanted to attack the catholic doctrine.
> On the contrary he was a strong supporter of the dogma
> regarding the virginity of Mary and considered that it was one
> of the best initiative of the catholic chuch at the end of last century.

I agree. I don't think that Jung was attacking Catholicism. However,
he was not a theologian and his way of phrasing his ideas was
sometimes not compatible with RC doctrine.

[]
> A french priest, Alzon, had a strong insight of this kind of spirituality
> and created a new order of nuns which glorified the virginity of Mary,
> the Oblates of the Assumption (If I translate well from french.)

I am not criticizing the RC teaching on Mary. Her prayers and example
play an important role in my personal spirituality.

> Not all women are corresponding to the ordinary beauty standards,
> and age anyway takes its toll. But a spiritual feminity does not
> fear a disadvantageous appearance and the ravage of time.
> However when a woman wants to a becomes a man in her inner life,
> she is loosing all kind of attractiveness, even the most decent ones,
> and has more chances to becomes only an object of pity.

You seem to be equating ordination with becoming a man in one's inner
life. This is where I do not understand your position. All baptized
women already are priests (as are the men). If sharing in the
priesthood of all believers does not damage our femininity in any way,
how does ordained priesthood threaten it?

> This does not mean that women cannot influence the spiritual and
> intellectual life of the church on the contrary.
> The real tragedy for men would be to loose their perception of life
> and spirituality.

Are you saying that it would be harmful to men to have ordination open
to women? Please explain this further. I have heard proponents of
women's ordination claim that the lack of female priests hurts women
because it makes it hard for them to grasp that they are made in the
image of God. If the needs of men and women truly were in conflict,
how could we decide which to help?

Jayne

[yo...@commonlink.com]

James Adrian van Wyk <jimv...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>.....By understanding the Bible within

>the context, of the cultures it came from, and by understanding passages
>in the larger context, of scripture, understanding what underlies the
>passages, and then applying them, to our own place and time, We render
>them relevant.

You just keep making these kinds of sweeping, generic, philosophical,
circular reasoning statements, but fail to demonstrate, from the
passages in question, how the prohibitions of women teaching or
holding authority over men, pertain only to the day in which they are
written, or how this "cultural" interpretation explains the dozen or
so non-cultural reasons mentioned in the context where they are found.

While cultural considerations enter into Biblical interpretation, you
cannot prove, from the context of the passages where these
prohibitions occur, that they apply only to the day and time in which
they were written. The context determines whether or not, and to what
extent the passage applies today. There is no Biblical authority for
setting aside these prohibitions, as there is for setting aside the OT
Law (Rom. 7 - 8; Gal. 3) and the ways of the world (Rom. 12:1ff.; Eph.
4 - 5), as a way of life (which is the meaning of the word "culture").
As Anon has repeatedly demonstrated, from the specific contexts where
the prohibitions occur, the reasons given are based on God's nature,
will, and design for godly men, women, and the NT church, and there is
nothing in the context which supports the idea that these ways of life
apply only to the day in which they were written.

"Culture means "ways of life", and there is no Biblical authority for
setting aside the prohibitions of women teaching or holding authority
over a man, as there is for setting aside the OT Law (Rom. 7 - 8; Gal.
3) and the ways of the world (Rom. 12:1ff.; Eph. 4 - 5), as ways of
life.

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

> jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
> wrote:

[]

>>You appear to be saying that Paul's comments about veils and hair
>>length still apply to us today. Do you believe that it is God's will
>>for all cultures that women have long hair and be veiled when praying?
>>Such a belief is the logical consequence of your method of
>>interpretting Scripture.
>
> This seems kind of like one of those "when did you stop beating your
> wife?" questions.

It was not supposed to be a trick question. I really wanted to know
if you were consistent in your method of interpretation.

> I'll answer your question, but let's not get
> distracted from the passages which actually deal with the prohibition
> of women teaching or holding authority over men, in the process.

You have claimed that those verses which speak of a husband's
authority over his wife support your interpretation. This passage does
say "the head of a woman is her husband" and connects it to Paul's
instruction that women should be veiled. Therefore I feel this
passage is relevant for understanding what the Bible teaches about the
roles of women.

> I've
> furnished about a dozen clear verses, in the immediate context of the
> passages where the prohibitions occur, which give timeless standards
> as reasons. I asked for one shred of evidence (from those passages),
> which proves that the prohibitions were only cultural, and which
> somehow invalidates the multiple clear, non-cultural reasons.

The instruction for women to be veiled also gives timeless standards
as reasons. You seem prepared to believe that it is not God's will
that Christian women must wear veils. I believe that it is not God's will
that Christian women must refrain from teaching men.

> This
> passage in 1 Cor. 11 isn't dealing with these prohibitions, and
> whether or not you agree with my interpretation of this passage may
> only serve as a distraction from the data which actually bears on the
> subject.

I quite agree that there is no point in us discussing whether or not
women should have long hair. However, how you interpret this passgae
has bearing on how you interpret others. It is important to bring the
same standards of interpretation to all issues.

> One possible understanding of this passage is that women's long hair
> is given to them for a covering (15b). Yes, I believe women should
> wear long hair, and that the instructions for them to cover their head
> with their long hair, in this passage, is a timeless principle for
> women of all ages. Others would hold a more literal understanding,
> and say this means women should also wear hats.

So then, we agree that there are timeless principles set forth for us
in Scripture. We also appear to agree that these timeless principles
vary in their specific application. In this case, you seem to be
saying that the principle that women should cover their heads need not
be applied in our culture to mean that they must wear veils. It is
enough that they have long hair.

Perhaps we can also agree on some of the timeless principles
concerning women. I think we agree that God wishes women to live in
holiness and godliness and to have a gentle and quiet spirit. We
disagree in that I see the instructions about women not having
authority over men as specific applications of these principles, while
you see them as further timeless principles.

[]

> But let not this passage distract from the issue. I have furnished
> about a dozen verses, from within the immediate context of the
> passages where the prohibitions of women teaching men occur, which
> clearly state they are based on God's nature, will, design, and on the
> timeless principles of "holiness", and "godliness". Where is one bit
> of evidence from within the same prohibition passages, which state
> they are only cultural, and that they do not apply to any other age
> than the one in which they were written?

But why do you restrict yourself to the immediate context when trying
to determine which instructions are timeless principles and which are
specific to the situation? If something is a timeless principle, it
will appear consistently throughout Scripture. This is the best way to
test it. The fact that we have so many examples of godly women
teaching and having authority over men is a clear indication that
Paul's instructions on this are specific rather than principles that
apply to all cultures.

[]

> Again, I have never said culture has no influence on the
> interpretation of a passage. But I trust some will have to see that
> the principle of interpretation which reasons such things as, "The
> Bible was written thousands of years ago, to specific
> people"...."there was a different culture thousands of years
> ago"....therefore Biblical instructions apply only to the people to
> whom the Bible was originally written", potentially renders the entire
> Bible irrelevant, and subject to the whims of the interpreter.

It is true that some people say the Bible is irrelevant and we should
throw out the parts we don't like. I saw a post like that just today
and found it very disturbing. What is left of our faith when we take
such an approach? I can understand you being suspicious of anything
that suggests such a view of Scripture. However, I don't think that
anyone in this thread was proposing it. It is certainly not my view.

> If we
> are to follow this line of reasoning, one might conclude that
> salvation is not now being offered to you, because it wasn't written
> to you, but to people who lived in a different culture, or because
> your name is not in the passage, etc. You determine from the context
> of the passage, whether or not the instructions directly apply, or
> whether they apply only in principle.

This is an area of disagreement then. I use the entire Bible to
determine whether instructions apply directly or only in principle,
rather than immediate context alone. The older I get, the more I can
see the Bible applying to events going on around me.

I have furnished a dozen or so
> verses from the immediate context of the passages where the
> prohibitions occur, which give such non-cultural reasons as the fact
> that: God is a God of order, not confusion (1 Cor. 14:33), these
> things are the commands of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37),

These are examples of Paul explaining to us the principles on which he
is basing his culturally specific instructions. This helps us to see
how to apply them in our culture.

> God made Adam
> "chief" (1 Tim. 2:11ff.), but the woman, being deceived, fell into
> transgression (ibid.),

This is a case of Paul using one specific situation to shed light on
another. If it were a general principle that women should not teach
because they are easily deceived then they would not have been
instructed to teach children and other women.

these things are written so that you might know
> how to behave yourself in the house of God, great is the mystery of
> "godliness" (1 Tim. 3:15),

It seems to me that the reference to "the women likewise" refers to
women who are deacons rather than deacons' wives, so this passage does
not support your conclusion.

submission and obedience is a standard of
> "holiness" and "godliness", for women throughout the ages (1 Peter
> 3:1-6), etc.

Submission and obedience *to one's husband* is a standard of holiness.
I don't see how this relates to your claim that women should never have
authority over men. The general principle that I see in this passage
is that women should aspire to have a gentle and quiet spirit. While
this would affect the way that women handle authority, it does not
preclude it.

> Now where are these supposed "cultural" verses, which render all these
> other timeless reasons for the prohibition irrelevant?

The timeless reasons are not irrelevant. However, they apply
differently in different situations.

> I don't think
> you can show it from the Bible, and that you will therefore continue
> to see just circular reasoning, based on the extra-Biblical, pseudo
> principle of interpretation, which basically says the entire Bible
> means what culture says it means, and nothing more.

We understand what the Bible means in our culture by seeing how the
timeless principles were applied in other cultures. Of course, there
is a danger that we might manipulate Scripture to say what we want it
to say. However, this danger exists with any method of interpretation,
even yours. We all need to be constantly examining how we use
Scripture.

Jayne

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

In response to,

>>Anon has claimed that women today must be silent, have no authority,
>>etc. because the way that Paul defends these instructions shows they
>>are universal rather than culture or situation specific.
[]

an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

> and other women. I've never said women are not allowed to talk
> anywhere at all, or have no authority at all.

I'm sorry that I misrepresented your view. I did not mean to do so.
I chose the wording I did as a shortened way to summarize your views
which I assumed that anyone following the thread would be familiar
with. That is what I meant by the "etc", but it was not clear.

Jayne

[Anon]

jsl...@soc.sas.upenn.edu (James A. Sledd) wrote:

>Anon (an...@anon.com) wrote:

>: I asked for one shred of evidence (from those passages),

>: which proves that the prohibitions were only cultural, and which
>: somehow invalidates the multiple clear, non-cultural reasons.

>Hows this: That it be given by Paul.

Again, in this entire post, I did not see a demonstration, from
Scripture, that the instruction does not apply to today. Merely
asserting it doesn't, doesn't prove a thing. "All Scripture is given
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof,
correction, and isntruction in righteousness." (2 Tim. 3:16). Peter
recognized "all" of Paul's letters as Scripture, and said that holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter
3:15-16; 1:21). The Lord personally called and comissioned Paul as an
"apostle and teacher to the gentiles", and all the other apostles
recognized this (1 Tim. 2:7; Acts 15; Gal. 1-2).

Paul's writings are just as much God's Word, as are Jesus Words, since
the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write them. When Paul says "I say",
or "I say not the Lord", he means he is addressing subjects which the
Lord did not address while on earth, and that he is therefore teaching
by his Christ given authority (1 Tim. 2:7). Even in a passage where
he says he is giving his opinion (1 Cor. 7:40), he adds that he has
the Spirit of God. There is no Scriptural basis for setting aside the
authority of Paul's writings, and every Scriptural reason to regard
them "all" as the Word of God.

[Anon]

jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
wrote:

>> One possible understanding of this passage is that women's long hair

>> is given to them for a covering (15b). Yes, I believe women should
>> wear long hair, and that the instructions for them to cover their head
>> with their long hair, in this passage, is a timeless principle for
>> women of all ages. Others would hold a more literal understanding,
>> and say this means women should also wear hats.

>....In this case, you seem to be

>saying that the principle that women should cover their heads need not
>be applied in our culture to mean that they must wear veils. It is
>enough that they have long hair.

Well, Jayne, the reason I concluded that one possible interpretation
of the passage is that women's long hair is a covering, is because
verse 15b says that her "hair is given to her for a covering". This
may be saying that the kind of covering previously referred to is
their hair. Others hold a more literal understanding, that they
should still wear hats as well. Thus, my conclusion was based on
contextual evidence, rather than the idea that the culture (which I
understand to mean "ways of life") has changed.

>> Where is one bit
>> of evidence from within the same prohibition passages, which state
>> they are only cultural, and that they do not apply to any other age
>> than the one in which they were written?

>But why do you restrict yourself to the immediate context when trying
>to determine which instructions are timeless principles and which are
>specific to the situation? If something is a timeless principle, it
>will appear consistently throughout Scripture. This is the best way to
>test it. The fact that we have so many examples of godly women
>teaching and having authority over men is a clear indication that
>Paul's instructions on this are specific rather than principles that
>apply to all cultures.

I would only point here, to previous posts, where I demonstrated that
the general Scripture norm is for men to be in positions of authority,
and for women to be in submission. For example, God made Adam, then
made Eve for Adam, and did not make Adam for Eve (Gen.; 1 Cor. 11; 1
Tim. 2:11ff.). God always reckons families under the headship of the
men, throughout the entire Bible. God used only men to write the
Bible. God made only men priests. God made men king over Israel.
God made all his covenants with men (Noah, Abraham, David, etc.). God
Himself is masculine. Christ is a man, and is Master of the Universe.
All the apostles were men, etc. Thus, male leadership is presented as
the norm in the overwhelming mass of the entire Bible.

Against this, I've seen maybe two dozen verses which even mention
women in relation to the NT church. Almost all of these in no way
state or imply that a woman taught or held authority over men. We
find such examples as a church meeting in a woman's house, or a brief
reference to Phoebe being the servant and helper of a local church, or
Priscilla being mentioned with her husband as taking aside Apollos on
one occasion, and these sparse references are strung together and
presented as if they show women teaching and holding authority over
men , and as if this establishes the Bible pattern, norm and standard
of all ages.

The only clear reference where I can see that God actually put a woman
in authority over a man is in Judges, where Deborah was a prophet and
leader of the people. It is also clear from the book of judges, that
this was a unique time of national rebellion, when "every man did what
was right in their own eyes". That God would put a woman in authority
at a unique time and place such as this seems only appropriate, since
it reflected their rebellion against God's authority. But why must
such an instance anymore establishes the norm of God's will for women
of the NT church, than the following reference that a man of Israel
stabbed king Ehud in the gut with a dagger, therefore means men of the
church today are authorized to kill political leaders who opress God's
people?

The point is, there are *not* "many examples of godly women teaching
and holding authority over men". The overwhelming pattern is male
leadership, and there may be one or two actual exceptions to this rule
in the entire Bible. These in no way set a standard or norm for women
of the NT church, but are a rare exception which proves the rule. In
addition to the overwhelming mass of data which presents men as God's
agents of authority on earth, there are specific passages, in those
books of the Bible which most directly pertain to instructions for
church life in the NT era, which clearly and directly state that women
are not allowed to teach or hold authority over men (1 Tim. 2:11ff.).

>These are examples of Paul explaining to us the principles on which he
>is basing his culturally specific instructions. This helps us to see
>how to apply them in our culture.

See, again, we have this kind of confident assertion, without any
demonstration of such from the passage in question, where the reasons
given are only non-cultural.

>> God made Adam
>> "chief" (1 Tim. 2:11ff.), but the woman, being deceived, fell into
>> transgression (ibid.),

>This is a case of Paul using one specific situation to shed light on
>another. If it were a general principle that women should not teach
>because they are easily deceived then they would not have been
>instructed to teach children and other women.

And the "specific situation" to which Paul is applying it is the
matter of women teaching or holding authority over men.

> these things are written so that you might know
>> how to behave yourself in the house of God, great is the mystery of
>> "godliness" (1 Tim. 3:15),

>It seems to me that the reference to "the women likewise" refers to
>women who are deacons rather than deacons' wives, so this passage does
>not support your conclusion.

Well, I commend you for at least attempting to support your view from
the Scripture. Even if you don't agree that 1 Tim. 3 is listing
qualifications for deacon's wives, rather than deaconesses, the
summary that the things which Paul has written pertain to godly
conduct in the church includes chapter 2, where Paul has said that
women are not allowed to teach or hold authority over men.

> submission and obedience is a standard of
>> "holiness" and "godliness", for women throughout the ages (1 Peter
>> 3:1-6), etc.

>Submission and obedience *to one's husband* is a standard of holiness.
>I don't see how this relates to your claim that women should never have
>authority over men. The general principle that I see in this passage
>is that women should aspire to have a gentle and quiet spirit. While
>this would affect the way that women handle authority, it does not
>preclude it.

This passage counters such ideas, as the one above, where you have
stated that "we have so many examples of godly women teaching and
having authority over men ". It presents a general standard for
"holy" and "godly" women of all ages, which is one of quiet submission
to the authority of their husbands. This is clearly a general norm
for "holy" and "godly" women throughout the ages, as Sarah (a woman
who lived 3,000 years before Peter wrote this) is set forth as an
example of how holy and godly women obeyed and respected their
husbands. This supports the idea that men are overwhelmingly
presented, in the Bible, as God's agents of authroity in the
institution of the family, and every other institution of God.

>> Now where are these supposed "cultural" verses, which render all these
>> other timeless reasons for the prohibition irrelevant?

>The timeless reasons are not irrelevant. However, they apply
>differently in different situations.

Well, at least you are saying this. I would like to see it
demonstrated from the passages where the prohibitions occur,
especially since the reasons given for the instruction are timeless
standards such as because, "God is a God of order, and not confusion",
"these things I write are the Lord's commands", etc. I have neither
seen it established as a general norm, in the context of the entire
Bible, nor as a specific norm, in the context of the chapters where
the prohibitions occur, that the reasons given for prohibiting women
from teaching or holding authority over a man are in any way cultural,
much less only cultural. I have seen it generally established, in the
context of the entire Bible, that men are overwhelmingly presented as
God's agents of authority in every institution, and specifically
established, in the context of books and passages which are
specifically aimed at giving instructions on how people should relate
and conduct themselves in the NT church, that women are not to teach
or hold authority over men.

>> I don't think
>> you can show it from the Bible, and that you will therefore continue
>> to see just circular reasoning, based on the extra-Biblical, pseudo
>> principle of interpretation, which basically says the entire Bible
>> means what culture says it means, and nothing more.

>We understand what the Bible means in our culture by seeing how the
>timeless principles were applied in other cultures. Of course, there
>is a danger that we might manipulate Scripture to say what we want it
>to say. However, this danger exists with any method of interpretation,
>even yours. We all need to be constantly examining how we use
>Scripture.

I think you are at least trying to be more honest than most who argue
your view.

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

> jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
> wrote:

[]

> Against this, I've seen maybe two dozen verses which even mention
> women in relation to the NT church. Almost all of these in no way
> state or imply that a woman taught or held authority over men. We
> find such examples as a church meeting in a woman's house,

This is a case where knowledge of the culture helps us to understand
Scripture better. To be the owner of the house where a group met was
considered a position of authority. This is not explicitly stated in
Scripture because it was background knowledge that everyone of that
culture knew.

> or a brief
> reference to Phoebe being the servant and helper of a local church,

The brief reference is very revealing. Romans 16:1,2 says:

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at
Cenchreae, that you may receive her in the Lord as befits the saints,
and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a
helper of many and of myself as well."

As I recall, the Greek word used to call Phoebe a deacon uses the
masculine grammatical gender rather than feminine. (I don't have a
Greek NT here -- perhaps somone could check this.) It is not likely
that it would do this if the word was being used in the sense of a
servant. Instead, this indicates that it refers to an office of deacon
identical to that exercised by men.

When Paul tells the members of the church at Rome to "help her in
whatever she may require of you" he is placing her in a position of
authority over them. She has the authority make requirements of them.
They are to do whatever she asks.

> or
> Priscilla being mentioned with her husband as taking aside Apollos on
> one occasion,

As well as this story from Acts, they are mentioned several times in
the Epistles, including Romans in which Paul calls them his fellow
workers. This appellation, combined with the story in Acts, indicates
they did the same work of the Lord that Paul did, i.e. preaching and
teaching. Further evidence that "fellow worker" refers to a position
of authority can be found in I Cor 3:5-9. This same designation of
fellow worker is also used of single women, (cf. Rom 16:6) not just
married couples.

> and these sparse references are strung together and
> presented as if they show women teaching and holding authority over
> men ,

Well, they do show it. There are more NT verses giving examples of
women teaching and holding authority than there are verses saying that
women should not do these things.

> and as if this establishes the Bible pattern, norm and standard
> of all ages.

I wouldn't say this. Obviously there are some cases where women should
not be teaching or holding authority or Paul would not have written as
he did.

> The only clear reference where I can see that God actually put a woman
> in authority over a man is in Judges, where Deborah was a prophet and
> leader of the people. It is also clear from the book of judges, that
> this was a unique time of national rebellion, when "every man did what
> was right in their own eyes". That God would put a woman in authority
> at a unique time and place such as this seems only appropriate, since
> it reflected their rebellion against God's authority.

Our positions have reversed. In this case you are the one who sees
Scripture speaking to a specific situation and I am the one who sees
the timeless principle -- God calls men and women to serve in many
capacities and we should not place limits on them.

> But why must
> such an instance anymore establishes the norm of God's will for women
> of the NT church, than the following reference that a man of Israel
> stabbed king Ehud in the gut with a dagger, therefore means men of the
> church today are authorized to kill political leaders who opress God's
> people?

Many things take place in Scripture that are not examples for us to
follow. The main way to tell what is an example is to test Scripture
against Scripture. The story of Deborah is alluded to in Hebrews 11 in
the listing of heroes of faith which indicates that it is an example.
(Deborah is not mentioned by name, but rather Barak, the man who
placed himself under her authority and assisted her in leading the
people to victory.)

> The point is, there are *not* "many examples of godly women teaching
> and holding authority over men". The overwhelming pattern is male
> leadership, and there may be one or two actual exceptions to this rule
> in the entire Bible.

In the Bible there are no examples of a democratic government. The
overwhelming pattern for government is some form of monarchy. Does
this mean that monarchy is the norm and standard for all ages? Does
this mean that countries with democratic governments are going against
God's will? I don't think so.

I think that monarchical political organization is a part of the
background behind the main story of God's plan of salvation.
Similarly, patriarchal social organization is just part of the
background. Neither patriarchy nor monarchy are God's will for all
time.

[]

>>These are examples of Paul explaining to us the principles on which he
>>is basing his culturally specific instructions. This helps us to see
>>how to apply them in our culture.
>
> See, again, we have this kind of confident assertion, without any
> demonstration of such from the passage in question, where the reasons
> given are only non-cultural.

Each Epistle opens with a salutation -- to the church at Rome, to the
saints at Corinth, to Timothy, etc. This alone shows us they address
specific situations. In addition, we see things like the "now
concerning" formula used in I Corinthians. Starting with 7:1 "Now
concerning the matters about which you wrote..." each new topic is
introduced with the phrase translated in RSV as "now concerning."
These passages are responses to specific questions and issues familiar
to Paul's intended audience. This does *not* mean that we should
ignore the epistles. They are "inspired by God and profitable" for us.
This is precisely why I consider culture. I find that I get the most
meaning from the Epistles when I reconstruct the original situation
and then apply it to my own.

>>> God made Adam
>>> "chief" (1 Tim. 2:11ff.), but the woman, being deceived, fell into
>>> transgression (ibid.),
>
>>This is a case of Paul using one specific situation to shed light on
>>another. If it were a general principle that women should not teach
>>because they are easily deceived then they would not have been
>>instructed to teach children and other women.
>
> And the "specific situation" to which Paul is applying it is the
> matter of women teaching or holding authority over men.

The situation is that of a church struggling against heresy. Women,
in particular, are susceptible to this heresy (not surprising since
they would tend to have less education than the men) and *these
specific women who have been deceived by the heresy* are forbidden to
teach or hold authority.

[]

>>It seems to me that the reference to "the women likewise" refers to
>>women who are deacons rather than deacons' wives, so this passage does
>>not support your conclusion.
>
> Well, I commend you for at least attempting to support your view from
> the Scripture. Even if you don't agree that 1 Tim. 3 is listing
> qualifications for deacon's wives, rather than deaconesses, the
> summary that the things which Paul has written pertain to godly
> conduct in the church includes chapter 2, where Paul has said that
> women are not allowed to teach or hold authority over men.

Paul's audience, familiar with the situation, understood him as saying
heretical women are not allowed to teach or hold over men. Faithful
women could be deacons.

>> submission and obedience is a standard of
>>> "holiness" and "godliness", for women throughout the ages (1 Peter
>>> 3:1-6), etc.
>
>>Submission and obedience *to one's husband* is a standard of holiness.
>>I don't see how this relates to your claim that women should never have
>>authority over men. The general principle that I see in this passage
>>is that women should aspire to have a gentle and quiet spirit. While
>>this would affect the way that women handle authority, it does not
>>preclude it.
>
> This passage counters such ideas, as the one above, where you have
> stated that "we have so many examples of godly women teaching and
> having authority over men ". It presents a general standard for
> "holy" and "godly" women of all ages, which is one of quiet submission
> to the authority of their husbands.

If women ought to be submissive to their husbands this does not imply
that they cannot have authority in other situations. Deborah was a
godly woman and so, we must assume, submissive to her husband,
Lappidoth. Yet she clearly had a position of authority over men.

There are many examples of godly women in households with male
servants -- Sarah, for one. Do you think these women had no
authority over their servants because they were submissive to their
husbands?

> This is clearly a general norm
> for "holy" and "godly" women throughout the ages, as Sarah (a woman
> who lived 3,000 years before Peter wrote this) is set forth as an
> example of how holy and godly women obeyed and respected their
> husbands.

Well then, let's follow Peter's advice. Let's consider the example of
Sarah in order to discover exactly what the Bible means by a
submissive wife. The incident concerning Hagar in Gen 16 is
instructive. Sarah told Abraham what to do and "Abram hearkened to the
voice of Sarai." In other words, he did what she told him. Later, when she
didn't like how things were going, she complained to her husband and
Abram's response was to tell Sarai to do as she pleased.

Jayne

[Michael C. Horsch]

Anon wrote:
> I would only point here, to previous posts, where I demonstrated that
> the general Scripture norm is for men to be in positions of authority,
> and for women to be in submission. For example, God made Adam, then
> made Eve for Adam, and did not make Adam for Eve (Gen.; 1 Cor. 11; 1
> Tim. 2:11ff.). God always reckons families under the headship of the
> men, throughout the entire Bible. God used only men to write the
> Bible. God made only men priests. God made men king over Israel.
> God made all his covenants with men (Noah, Abraham, David, etc.). God
> Himself is masculine. Christ is a man, and is Master of the Universe.
> All the apostles were men, etc. Thus, male leadership is presented as
> the norm in the overwhelming mass of the entire Bible.

1) That the Bible portrays men as dominant establishes only that
men were dominant in times during which the Bible was written.

2) In order to prove something stronger, you need some independent
evidence; using scripture to prove scripture is circular
reasoning. Thus your conclusion may be true, but you have
given no reason to believe it.

3) Examples do not prove the rule; I can come up with a competing
theory which explains the examples adequately. For example,
Biblical cultures were male-dominated, therefore scripture
reflects the domination, rather than the will of God. (This
example does not prove anything about God's will either -- that's
the point I'm making here)

Note that I am not claiming that it is incorrect to believe that God
favours male headship; but you should be aware that scripture alone
fails to establish it, and that your belief is (hopefully) based on
external factors. It would be helpful for all concerned to know what
these factors are.

Mike (goo)
--
Michael C. Horsch | Science explains the world, but
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/horsch | only Art can reconcile us to it.
| -- Stanislaw Lem

[James A. Sledd]

Anon (an...@anon.com) wrote:

: jsl...@soc.sas.upenn.edu (James A. Sledd) wrote:

: >Anon (an...@anon.com) wrote:

: >: I asked for one shred of evidence (from those passages),

: >Hows this: That it be given by Paul.

You asked for a "shred" of evidence. This surely is no
more than a shred.

: ...I did not see a demonstration, from

: Scripture, that the instruction does not apply to today.

Not all scripture is the same. That's the point I was making.
Knowing that and applying it to this particular situation might
bring one to beleive that Paul's admonition against women in
authority is not a message for all time. In the cultural
context in which Paul was writing the role of women as submissive
to men (it seems to me at least) was universal, and universally
accepted. Perhaps this unquestioned acceptance gave Paul the
impression that this must be God's plan for all time.

: Merely

: asserting it doesn't, doesn't prove a thing. "All Scripture is given
: by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof,
: correction, and isntruction in righteousness." (2 Tim. 3:16).

My Bible says "the second letter of Paul the apostle to Timothy"
^^^^
How can you use the words of Paul to say that Paul's words are
profitable? Grasp the circular nature of that?

: Paul's writings are just as much God's Word, as are Jesus Words,

So you may beleive. Just asserting it doesn't prove it is so.
When I read the Bible it seems that everything directly attributed
to Jesus rings true. Not everything Paul says has that same ring.
Besides, because Jesus is God his words are God's words, directly,
immediately, of neccessity. The same does not apply to Paul.

The preceding is just my opinion. I know a lot of people are
very attached to their Bibles, and attached to Paul. If they
wish to hold opinions contrary to mine, more power too them.

[opthalamion]

Anon wrote:
>
> Some are arguing that the prohibition of women teaching men, or
> holding authority over men, was part of the culture of Bible days, and
> so the Biblical instructions about it apply only to that age. They
> say that since today's culture permits women teaching men, and holding
> authority over them, then that means today, it is proper in the church
> as well.

I, on the other hand, argue that it was *not* a part of the culture
of the NT authors. In fact, that it was *not* the *practice* of the
NT authors or the leadership of the church of Jesus Christ during
the period of NT authorship. The specific examples I provided
to demonstrate this point are those of the deacon Pheobe and the
apostle Junia. Other examples are worth mentioning: Lydia, whose
leadership role was pivotal in Paul's ministry, and the "elect lady"
to whom the letter 2 John is addressed spring to mind.

> Besides, if the prohibition for women teaching or holding authority

> over men was because of the culture of Paul's day...

This is the specific point which I contend against. My claim,
supported by scripture, is that there was no such prohibition,
that such a prohibition is directly contrary to the teachings of
scripture, and that it is only by application of an erroneous
cultural bias that scripture has been interpreted to mean this.

[N. L. Tinkham]

Pierre Woinin wrote:

> A true priest is likely the most manly man,
> and the same can be said about the true nun regarding feminity.
> If you mix the two, you produce an truncated personality of each
> without much meaning left.

This theory has an empirical problem: the female priests I know don't
appear to have a "truncated personality". I've known fewer male monks,
but I lived near a monastic house when I was a student, and the monks
there didn't seem to have "truncated personalities" either.

So, from what I've seen in practice, being a priest doesn't actually
prevent women from being feminine, and being a monk doesn't actually
prevent men from being masculine. Do you have observations or studies
that support your theory?
_____________________________________________________________________________

Nancy Tinkham
n...@copland.rowan.edu

[Anon]

jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
wrote:

>This is a case where knowledge of the culture helps us to understand

>Scripture better. To be the owner of the house where a group met was
>considered a position of authority. This is not explicitly stated in
>Scripture because it was background knowledge that everyone of that
>culture knew.

Well, aren't you the one saying that the culture of the day is what
determines the application? When the passage says women are not
permitted to teach men, you say that was just the culture of that day,
and it therefore no longer applies, because our culture is changing
from this. But then, if it looks like the passage may be used to
support your view, you seem to now be saying that women should be
permitted to teach men, because the culture of that day was that
meeting in one's house was a sign of authority.

Even by your own standard of interpretation, I know when I was helping
start a missionary church, we met in people's homes, sometimes in
women's homes, and the women acted only in th sense of greeting those
who came, and making their place available. They in no way taught, or
exercised authority over anyone, much less men. So, by your standard
of cultural interpretation, since today, meeting in someone's house
does not imply leadership or instruction over men, then this passage
does not support your view even if the culture of that day does.

But I don't believe that the culture of that day was that if a church
met in a woman's house, that therefore implies she was leading or
instructing men. Yet this is the only kind of references which are
used in support of the view which contradicts the plain teaching that
women are not permitted to teach or hold authority over men, and that
this is a principle of godliness (1 Tim. 2:11ff; cf. 3:15).

>As I recall, the Greek word used to call Phoebe a deacon uses the
>masculine grammatical gender rather than feminine. (I don't have a
>Greek NT here -- perhaps somone could check this.) It is not likely
>that it would do this if the word was being used in the sense of a
>servant. Instead, this indicates that it refers to an office of deacon
>identical to that exercised by men.

I did an exhaustive study on this word in a previous post. The word
"diakonos", means "to wait on", or "serve", and is used in a variety
of contexts, where it refers to everything from general acts of
service by slaves, to official acts of service. The context indicates
the manner in which Phoebe was a "diakonos", when it says that she was
"a helper" of Paul also. We know Phoebe was not instructing or
leading Paul, and yet he calls her a "diakonos", in the sense in which
she helped, or showed mercy to him in a time of need. One cannot
accurately conclude, on the basis of the meaning of this word alone,
that Phoebe held an office of authority and instruction over men.

>When Paul tells the members of the church at Rome to "help her in
>whatever she may require of you" he is placing her in a position of
>authority over them. She has the authority make requirements of them.
>They are to do whatever she asks.

Actually, there is some truth to what you are saying here, and it is
born out both by the meaning of the words, and the context. But they
were to act on Paul's inspired authority, not Phoebe's, and it was
only for this specific purpose of helping Phoebe with the task of
showing mercy to others, not for the purpose of learning Bible truths,
or ways of life from her in general. This does not refer to an office
of authority or instruction over men, but rather to helping a woman
serve and show mercy to others.

>> or
>> Priscilla being mentioned with her husband as taking aside Apollos on
>> one occasion,

>As well as this story from Acts, they are mentioned several times in
>the Epistles, including Romans in which Paul calls them his fellow
>workers.

I trust even the casual reader will see the difference between being a
fellow laborer in the gospel, and teaching and holding authority over
men. Philippians, a book which mentions gospel fellowship, and
fellowlaborers more than perhaps any other, shows how he expected
believers to share the gospel minisry:

"If therefore there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any
consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any
affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same
mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one
purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with
humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important
than himself; etc." (Php. 2:1-3).

The entier book of Philippians is filled with references like this,
where fellowship in the gospel ministry is associated with acts of
manual labor for the benefit of others, childlike service, etc.
(2:19-30). To therefore call someone a fellow laborer most often
means that they were promoting the faith of the gospel through their
attitude and manual service of others, and not that they were an
authority or instructor of men. Just because Paul calls someone a
"fellow laborer", therefore, doesn't mean they taught and held
authority over men, and most often does not.

>This appellation, combined with the story in Acts, indicates
>they did the same work of the Lord that Paul did, i.e. preaching and
>teaching. Further evidence that "fellow worker" refers to a position
>of authority can be found in I Cor 3:5-9. This same designation of
>fellow worker is also used of single women, (cf. Rom 16:6) not just
>married couples.

See above. The references to fellow laborers is best, and most
abundantly given in Philippians, where it refers to almost evrery kind
of service, and attitude of love but teaching or holding authority
over men. I trust even the casual reader will be able to discern
this.

>> and these sparse references are strung together and
>> presented as if they show women teaching and holding authority over
>> men ,

>Well, they do show it. There are more NT verses giving examples of
>women teaching and holding authority than there are verses saying that
>women should not do these things.

This amazes me. I can show 10,000 verses, where God states and
illustrates that men are His normative agents of authority in every
institution on earth, from the family to the local church, and
passages in books which were specifically written to give the timeless
standards of "godliness" to the NT church (1 Tim. 3:15), which
clearly, and in no uncertain terms prohibit women from teaching or
holding authority over men. People who hold your view seem to deny
all this, or say it is irrelevant, then hold up sparse referenses
which do not even say what they are saying, and act like this
unfitting interpretation of these few references are the normative,
overriding principle for the church of all ages.

Never mind there is a verse which clearly says women are not permitted
to teach or hold authority over men, they've got a verse which says a
church met in a woman's house! Clearly that proves the overriding
principle is for women to teach men! How can anyone not get this?

>I wouldn't say this. Obviously there are some cases where women should
>not be teaching or holding authority or Paul would not have written as
>he did.

Nevermind the specific cases the passage says it is refering to are

"that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household

of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support
of the truth. And by comon confession great is the mystery of
godliness:..." (1 Tim. 3:15). Nevermind this timeless principle of
godliness which is aimed at telling people how to conduct themselves
in a godly manner in the household of God, there's a verse that says
Phoebe was a servant of a church. Clearly that means that in most
situations, women should teach and hold authority over men! How can
anyone not see this clear teaching? (I speak as a fool; cf. 2 Cor.
11:21).

>> The only clear reference where I can see that God actually put a woman
>> in authority over a man is in Judges, where Deborah was a prophet and
>> leader of the people. It is also clear from the book of judges, that
>> this was a unique time of national rebellion, when "every man did what
>> was right in their own eyes". That God would put a woman in authority
>> at a unique time and place such as this seems only appropriate, since
>> it reflected their rebellion against God's authority.

>Our positions have reversed. In this case you are the one who sees
>Scripture speaking to a specific situation and I am the one who sees
>the timeless principle -- God calls men and women to serve in many
>capacities and we should not place limits on them.

Of course. If the passage seems to support your view, it's a timeless
principle. If it does not, it only applies to the day in which it was
written. I trust even the casual reader will see the difference
between instructions for rebellious Israel and instructions given to
the the NT church.

>> But why must
>> such an instance anymore establishes the norm of God's will for women
>> of the NT church, than the following reference that a man of Israel
>> stabbed king Ehud in the gut with a dagger, therefore means men of the
>> church today are authorized to kill political leaders who opress God's
>> people?

>Many things take place in Scripture that are not examples for us to
>follow. The main way to tell what is an example is to test Scripture
>against Scripture.

Yes, Yes, Yes! Finally, this point gets through. This is what I've
been saying all along about those passages which prohibit women from
teaching or holding authority over men. The other Scripture around
those prohibitions give timeless principles of godliness and God's
character, design, and will, and there is nothing in the passages
which suggests otherwise. The context of the etire Bible establishes
men as God's normative agents of authority in every institution of
life, and a role of obedient submission for women is the Scriptural
norm thorughout the Bible (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5; Col. 3; 1 Peter
3:1-6). 1 Peter 3:1-6 makes the general role of submission of women
to the authority of their male husbands a timless principel of holy
and godly women, refering clear back to Sarah, who lived 3,000 years
prior. When you compare the entire Bible to the prohibitions of women
teaching or holding authority over men, you see that both the norm of
the entire Bible, and the context of specific passages which are
addressed to the NT church, support the clear prohibitions of women

teaching or holding authority over men.

>> The point is, there are *not* "many examples of godly women teaching

>> and holding authority over men". The overwhelming pattern is male
>> leadership, and there may be one or two actual exceptions to this rule
>> in the entire Bible.

>In the Bible there are no examples of a democratic government. The
>overwhelming pattern for government is some form of monarchy. Does
>this mean that monarchy is the norm and standard for all ages? Does
>this mean that countries with democratic governments are going against
>God's will? I don't think so.

The purpose of showing, from the entire Bible, that men are
overwhelmingly set forth as God's normative agents of authority in
every institution of life, was not to debate the form of government,
but to show that the statement "there are many examples of godly women
teaching and holding authority over men", is not correct, but that the
opposite is.

[1 Tim. 2:11ff.]

>The situation is that of a church struggling against heresy. Women,
>in particular, are susceptible to this heresy (not surprising since
>they would tend to have less education than the men) and *these
>specific women who have been deceived by the heresy* are forbidden to
>teach or hold authority.

Look. The entire Bible was written to certain people, at certain
times, for certain reasons. But all Scripture is given by inspiration
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness.

"Culture" means "ways of life", and the NT was written to show the
church the new ways in Christ, and to have them put off the old ways
of the world. How the passage applies to today is determined by the
context.

You cannot simply state "that was just a cultural thing", when there
is no evidence of such in the passage. Although it was written to a
specific church, at a specific time, for specific reasons, it is still
profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in
righteousness, for the church of all ages. If you cannot demonstrate
from the passage itself, that the instruction does not apply to the
church of this age (as passages which set aside the OT Law [Rom. 8;
Gal. 3], and the ways of the world [Rom. 12:1ff.; Eph. 4 - 5; etc.] as
ways of life do), or that it applies only in the way you say it does,
then there is no authoritative basis for saying "it only applies to
them".

The context of each passage which prohibits women from teaching or
holding authority over men, (let alone the direct, clear statement
that they are not permitted to), gives every timeless reason for the
instruction, and nothing which could be limited only to the people to
whom the letter was written. These include:

Because "God is not a God of confusion, but of order" (1 Cor. 14:33),
"these things I write are the commandments of the Lord" (14:37), "For
God made Adam chief" (1 Tim. 2:11ff.), "so that you may know how one
ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church
of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth....great is the
mystery of godliness..." (1 Tim. 3:15). There is nothing in these
passages which limits these verses which are profitable for doctrine,
reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, only to the day
and specific people to whom they were written. If you can't prove the
instruction in these passages applies only to that day, from the
passages themselves, as I have proved from the passages themselves,
that they are standards of godliness for the household of God, and
church, then you have no case for saying they do.

[regarding 1 Tim. 3)

>Paul's audience, familiar with the situation, understood him as saying
>heretical women are not allowed to teach or hold over men. Faithful
>women could be deacons.

And where does the passage say this?

>>> submission and obedience is a standard of
>>>> "holiness" and "godliness", for women throughout the ages (1 Peter
>>>> 3:1-6), etc.
>>
>>>Submission and obedience *to one's husband* is a standard of holiness.
>>>I don't see how this relates to your claim that women should never have
>>>authority over men. The general principle that I see in this passage
>>>is that women should aspire to have a gentle and quiet spirit. While
>>>this would affect the way that women handle authority, it does not
>>>preclude it.

Those who hold your view, when faced with passages which are
specifically addressed to the NT church, regarding how to behave in a
godly manner in the household of God, and which plainly and directly
state that women are not permitted to teach or hold authority over
men", resort to all manner of denials, including, but not limited to
such things as: "Paul's wrong", "Paul wasn't inspired", "the rest of
the Bible teaches otherwise, so this cannot be interpreted to mean
what it clearly says", etc.

It is in response to those who try to deny the prohibitions on the
basis that they say the rest of the Bible teaches otherwise, that I
apply the passage of 1 Peter 3:1-6. The reason for this, is because
it shows that the standard of obedient submission of women to their
husbands is a timeless standard of holiness and godliness for women,
and that the entire Bible overwhelmingly shows men as God's normative
agents of authority in every institution of life, including one of the
most important, "the family". "for if a man does not know how to
rule his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?"
(1 Tim. 3:5). Since men are to rule their families, and the ability
to rule one's family is a prerequisit to becoming a pastor of a
church, the passage in 1 Peter directly bears on this issue.

>> This passage counters such ideas, as the one above, where you have
>> stated that "we have so many examples of godly women teaching and
>> having authority over men ". It presents a general standard for
>> "holy" and "godly" women of all ages, which is one of quiet submission
>> to the authority of their husbands.

>If women ought to be submissive to their husbands this does not imply
>that they cannot have authority in other situations. Deborah was a
>godly woman and so, we must assume, submissive to her husband,
>Lappidoth. Yet she clearly had a position of authority over men.

See what we've done, here? We've gone from the plain teaching that
Sarah was showing the example of how holy and godly women obeyed and
submitted to their husbands to something the passage doesn't even hint
at, i.e., "this does not imply that they cannot have authority in
other situations." Yet this is a 1,000 times better than simply
stating "that was just cultural", since you are at least trying to
support your view from Scripture in this instance.

>There are many examples of godly women in households with male
>servants -- Sarah, for one. Do you think these women had no
>authority over their servants because they were submissive to their
>husbands?

Well, Abraham does say that "Hagar", the egyptian woman, was under
Sarah's control, but I don't see him saying that about his male
servant whom he sent to get a wife for Isaac. Do you? Of course, you
could refer to the pagan Egyptians, where Potiphar's wife commanded
Joseph to lie with her...but then, come to think of it, he took off
running instead.

>> This is clearly a general norm
>> for "holy" and "godly" women throughout the ages, as Sarah (a woman
>> who lived 3,000 years before Peter wrote this) is set forth as an
>> example of how holy and godly women obeyed and respected their
>> husbands.

>Well then, let's follow Peter's advice. Let's consider the example of
>Sarah in order to discover exactly what the Bible means by a
>submissive wife. The incident concerning Hagar in Gen 16 is
>instructive. Sarah told Abraham what to do and "Abram hearkened to the
>voice of Sarai." In other words, he did what she told him.

Nice try, but this was clearly the wrong thing for Abraham to do, as
Sarah herself acknowledges (Genesis 16:5), and as God explains to
Abraham (17:18ff.). The book of Galatians (4:21-31), portrays this
whole incident as an illustration of the folly of trying to achieve
God's will in the strength of the flesh, as Ishmael (the fruit of
Abraham's single act of obedience to Sarah), persecuted the child of
promise (as the Arabs do Israel to this day), and did not attain the
promise. If you want to take back this example, I'll act like you
never brought it up.

> Later, when she
>didn't like how things were going, she complained to her husband and
>Abram's response was to tell Sarai to do as she pleased.

Yes, I fully agree that he gave her permission to do with Hagar, the
Egyptian woman, as she pleased.

[Anon]

"Michael C. Horsch" <hor...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:

>1) That the Bible portrays men as dominant establishes only that
> men were dominant in times during which the Bible was written.

Well then, your theory applies only to the exact time in which it was
written, and even then, it applied only to the exact person to whom it
was written, and no one else. Since it is now a later time, and
people other than the one to whom you wrote it will be reading this
reply, then your reply is no longer valid.

See, regardless of what the entire Bible, or specific verses say, this
reply is all the opposing view can offer. This view cannot be shown
from Scripture, and it contradicts the entire context of the Bible, as
well as specific instructions given for "godly" behavior (1 Tim.
3:15). Godliness is not subject to change. It is an eternal,
unchanging character. "Ways of life", which is what "culture" means
(unless you are using the alternate meaning of the arts, which would
really be odd in this context), for God's people, are determined by
the will of God, and God's will is not determined by people's ways of
life. The Bible repeatedly shows that God saves his people from the
ways of the world, and society, and that they are His peculiar people,
who are to walk in the new ways of their new creation in Christ (2
Cor. 5; Eph. 4 - 5; etc.).

When God's people's ways change, it is because He changes His program
with them. For example, Adam's and Eve's God ordained culture ("ways
of life"), were to keep the garden, and avoid eating of the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil. When they failed this test, His
stewardship requirements for them ("ways of life") changed, and He
informed them of what their new ways would be. They would be expelled
from the garden, they would labor by the sweat of their brow for the
food they ate, and the women would bear children in great pain and
sorrow. God's change in stewardship requirements is what brought
about a change in culture for Adam and Eve.

Or again, after Adam and Eve, God wiped out the entire population of
the earth, except Noah, because their "ways of life" were "only evil
continually". God did not change His will, or His stewardship
requirements for men of that day, to accomodate their ways of life,
but he wiped them off the face of the earth for rejecting His ways.
After the flood, he changed Noah's stewardships, or "ways of life", to
include human government, and freedom to eat animals. These
instructions weren't adapted to Noah because "culture" had changed.
Rather, Noah's ways of life changed because God's stewardships for man
changed.

When men gathered together, and built the tower of Babel, God busted
up the "ways of life" for humanity, dividing their speech, and
scattering them abroad, over the face of the earth. This was what He
told them to do in the first place, but when they rebelled, and
determined to all stay in one place, he created such divisions of
speech and such among them, that they were compelled to change their
ways and live in accord with God's will. Thus, again, it was God's
stewardship requirements for man which determined the "way of life" of
society, and not the ways of life of society which determined God's
will.

Then, God called Abraham from among the people of the world, and made
a covenant with him. He promised Him the land of Canaan, a seed, and
spiritual blessing. The culture of Abraham's day was for the eldest,
or firstborn son to get the larger share of the inheritance. Abraham
attempted to bestow God's blessing, in the strength of his flesh, upon
his eldest son Ishmael, in keeping with this custom of his day, but
God rejected it (cf. Romans 9). In trying to bring about God's
promise in the strength of his flesh, rather than by faith in God's
promise that the child would come through Sarah, Abraham brought
perpetual trouble to himself and the nation Israel. God's will
determined that Isaac, and not Ishmael, as the culture, or "ways of
life" of Abraham's day would have dictated, would be the heir.

Then, when all of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah determined to force
Lot's guests to have homosexual relations, God did not agree to this,
because it was the custom of Sodom. He destroyed the place with fire
and brimstone because of its wickedness. God's will for His people is
not determined by the culture, or ways of life of the society in which
they are living. Rather, he rescued Lot out of the culture, or ways
of life in that place and day. This is so evident throughout the
entire Bible, that contending that culture, or the ways of life of
society, determines what God's will is, is ludacris. The very
opposite is true, and God is repeatedly shown, throughout history, to
save people from the ways of life, or culture of the day, to live a
holy life, in accordance with His ways.

In the same way, God set aside the Law, as a way of life for his
people, and is now creating a new body from Jews and Gentiles. His
stewardships, or ways of life for the church are different from the
nation Israel, and He states such in the NT. He gives the new ways,
and they are timeless principles of godliness, not temporary ways of
society in general. Besides, the revelation in the NT covers events
up to, and including the rapture of the church from earth, and the
millenial and eternal kingdoms of Christ. There is a specific warning
in Revelation that if anyone adds to these instructions, they are not
saved. The Bible is a complete book for the church of all ages, and
its truths are all doctrine which is profitable for reproof,
correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). There
is no new revelation which changes the ways of life for God's people,
beyond those timeless principles of godliness declared in the NT.

To simply say "in that day", or some such thing, as if timeless
principles of godliness pertain only to the exact time, and to the
exact people to whom the Bible was originally written, makes the whole
Bible subject to the interprative whims of those who hold your view.
If you don't like any particular "way of life" which the Bible is
calling for, you simply say it was only for "that culture". This
principle of interpretation renders the entire Bible potentially

irrelevant, since the entire Bible was written in the context of local

situations, to specific groups of people. The Bible cannot be the
subject of such variant, interprative whims.

>2) In order to prove something stronger, you need some independent
> evidence; using scripture to prove scripture is circular
> reasoning. Thus your conclusion may be true, but you have
> given no reason to believe it.

Spiritual truths are not subject to the judgment of human reason, but
human reason is subject to the judment of Spirit revealed truth,
according to 1 Cor. 2. I shouldn't even be dignifying this post with
a reply, since again,

1) You deny the clear teaching of God's Word, as set forth in
instructions given to the NT church, pertaining to principles of
godliness (1 Tim. 3:15), that women are not permitted to teach, or
hold authority over men.

2) You cannot Scripturally support your views that women are permitted
to teach or hold authoriy over men.

3) You cannot Scripturally refute the clear statements that women are
not permitted to teach or hold authority over men.

4) Your theories rely entirely on extra Biblical circular reasoning.

>3) Examples do not prove the rule; I can come up with a competing
> theory which explains the examples adequately. For example,
> Biblical cultures were male-dominated, therefore scripture
> reflects the domination, rather than the will of God. (This
> example does not prove anything about God's will either -- that's
> the point I'm making here)

Colossians 2 warns against submitting yourself to the reasonings of
men whose teachings do not come from Christ, the head, but from their
own puffed up, fleshly imaginations. Your views do not come from
Christ, else they could be supported from the Bible.

>Note that I am not claiming that it is incorrect to believe that God
>favours male headship; but you should be aware that scripture alone
>fails to establish it, and that your belief is (hopefully) based on
>external factors. It would be helpful for all concerned to know what
>these factors are.

The Bible is sufficient to establish the Man of God for "every good
work" (2 Tim. 3:16). The fact that you here seem to acknowledge that
you do not accept it as a compele authority may explain why you rely,
rather, on puffed up, fleshly imaginations, and whatever support you
may gather from a growing consensus which disregards the plain
teaching of God's Word, in favor of human reasoning.

If you cannot:

1) Show your view from the Bible

or

2) Refute my view from the Bible,

then I'm not going to dignify your mere human reasonings (popular as
they may be), with a reply.

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

> jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
> wrote:
>
>>This is a case where knowledge of the culture helps us to understand
>>Scripture better. To be the owner of the house where a group met was
>>considered a position of authority. This is not explicitly stated in
>>Scripture because it was background knowledge that everyone of that
>>culture knew.
>
> Well, aren't you the one saying that the culture of the day is what
> determines the application?

I am saying that culture is one factor to keep in mind when applying
Scripture to our own lives.

>When the passage says women are not
> permitted to teach men, you say that was just the culture of that day,
> and it therefore no longer applies, because our culture is changing
> from this.

No, I do not say this.

I say that the passage which says that women are not permitted to
teach men was referring to certain specific heretical women, not to
women in general.

I believe that everything in the Bible still applies, in some way, to
us today. When I read the Bible, I am asking, "What is God saying to
me, here and now?" Sometimes the things do not apply directly because
it was written in a culture different from my own, but it still
applies.

> But then, if it looks like the passage may be used to
> support your view, you seem to now be saying that women should be
> permitted to teach men, because the culture of that day was that
> meeting in one's house was a sign of authority.

[rest of this point deleted since it attacks a straw man, not my
actual postion]

You claimed that passages which showed churches meeting in women's
houses did not show that these women had authority. I made the
counter-claim that in that culture it did. This does not in iteslf
tell us if women ought to have authority. It is merely one piece of
data to consider.

>>As I recall, the Greek word used to call Phoebe a deacon uses the
>>masculine grammatical gender rather than feminine. (I don't have a
>>Greek NT here -- perhaps somone could check this.) It is not likely
>>that it would do this if the word was being used in the sense of a
>>servant. Instead, this indicates that it refers to an office of deacon
>>identical to that exercised by men.
>
> I did an exhaustive study on this word in a previous post. The word
> "diakonos", means "to wait on", or "serve", and is used in a variety
> of contexts, where it refers to everything from general acts of
> service by slaves, to official acts of service.

You are defining it as if it were a verb. "Diakonos" is a noun and
the "-os" ending usually indicates masculine gender. This is the same
ending used when the word refers to men holding the position of
deacon.

I don't know a lot of Greek but I majored in linguistics as an
undergrad. In a gender-inflected language, when a masculine word is
applied to a woman, it is often significant. For example, in French,
if I say I am a "canadienne" (with the feminine ending) I am telling
you my nationality. If I were to say I were a "Canadien" (with the
masculine ending) I would be telling you that I am a member of
Montreal's hockey team.

> The context indicates
> the manner in which Phoebe was a "diakonos", when it says that she was
> "a helper" of Paul also.

Paul, following the example of Christ, usually presents leadership as
a form of service and helping others. He frequently refers to himself
as a servant. Calling Phoebe "a helper" does not show that she did not
hold authority.

> We know Phoebe was not instructing or
> leading Paul,

How do we know that? You are assuming that.

> and yet he calls her a "diakonos", in the sense in which
> she helped, or showed mercy to him in a time of need. One cannot
> accurately conclude, on the basis of the meaning of this word alone,
> that Phoebe held an office of authority and instruction over men.

By far the most likely meaning of "diakonos" is the same meaning it
has applied to Stephen and Philip. This is a postion of authority,
though not instruction.

>>When Paul tells the members of the church at Rome to "help her in
>>whatever she may require of you" he is placing her in a position of
>>authority over them. She has the authority make requirements of them.
>>They are to do whatever she asks.
>
> Actually, there is some truth to what you are saying here, and it is
> born out both by the meaning of the words, and the context. But they
> were to act on Paul's inspired authority, not Phoebe's,

[]

If Phoebe's authority somehow does not count because it was based on
Paul's, then we should say that Paul's authority does not count
because it was based on Christ's. No human being has self-contained
authority. It always is ultimately derived from God.

>>> or
>>> Priscilla being mentioned with her husband as taking aside Apollos on
>>> one occasion,
>
>>As well as this story from Acts, they are mentioned several times in
>>the Epistles, including Romans in which Paul calls them his fellow
>>workers.
>
> I trust even the casual reader will see the difference between being a
> fellow laborer in the gospel, and teaching and holding authority over
> men.

I don't know about a casual reader, but a reader who looks at the way
"fellow laborer" is used will see that it usually refers to people who
teach and hold authority.

[Anon cites Php. 2:1-3]

This passage is about fellowship. It does not show how Paul uses the
term "fellow laborer." You seem to be confusing these two terms.

> The entier book of Philippians is filled with references like this,
> where fellowship in the gospel ministry is associated with acts of
> manual labor for the benefit of others, childlike service, etc.
> (2:19-30).

In the passage you cite occurs a description of Timothy, whom we know
held a position of authority and teaching, as seen in the Epistles
addressed to him. The other person mentioned is Epaphroditus, whom
Paul calls, "my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your
messenger and minister to my need." Since Paul writes of sending both
Timothy and Epaphroditus, it seems likely that they fill similar
functions. I do not see where you find manual labor in this passage.

The other usage of "fellow laborer" (rather than fellowship) I found
in this epistle was Php 4:3:

"And I ask you true yokefellow, help these women, for they have
labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and
the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life."

This Clement most likely refers to the same one whom we know from
extra-biblical sources was a leader in the early Church.

Similarly, in I Cor 3:5-9 it refers to Apollos, whom we know had a
position of leadership and teaching.

Can you show any other places where Paul refers to people as a fellow
workers and we know from elsewhere what those people did? How many of
them did not have positions of authority/teaching? So far, we have
seen it referring to Priscilla, Timothy, Clement and Apollos, all of
whom taught or held authority.

[]

>>Many things take place in Scripture that are not examples for us to
>>follow. The main way to tell what is an example is to test Scripture
>>against Scripture.
>
> Yes, Yes, Yes! Finally, this point gets through. This is what I've
> been saying all along about those passages which prohibit women from
> teaching or holding authority over men.

Well, I've been saying it all along too. That doesn't say much for
our powers of communication. :-)

> The other Scripture around
> those prohibitions give timeless principles of godliness and God's
> character, design, and will, and there is nothing in the passages
> which suggests otherwise.

The epistles, by their nature, are applications of timeless principles
to specific sitations. When Paul gives a timeless principle as
justification for an instruction, this does not show the instruction
is itself a timeless priciple. We need other information to determine
that. The main source is other passages throughout Scripture,
although knowledge of culture and history also helps.

>The context of the etire Bible establishes
> men as God's normative agents of authority in every institution of
> life,

There are indeed many passages which show men being in authority. This
does not establish it as God's standard. There are also many
passages which show slavery. There are also many passages which show a
pastoral/ agricultural society. There are also many passages which
show government by monarchy.

The social structures described in the Bible are not necessarily norms
of behaviour for all time. Is it God's will that we restore slavery?
Should the United States have a king rather than a president? Should
we shut down all the factories and return to the land? All these
things have as good a biblical basis as your belief in male authority.

Just because illustrations of males in authority occur more frequently
than females in authority, we cannot conclude that this reveals male
authority as God's will. It is highly significant that there are any
examples of female authority at all, since this was contrary to the
surrounding culture. That godly women could attain these positions in
these circumstances indicates the hand of God at work. How can you
then say that it was against God's will?

> and a role of obedient submission for women is the Scriptural
> norm thorughout the Bible (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5; Col. 3; 1 Peter
> 3:1-6). 1 Peter 3:1-6 makes the general role of submission of women
> to the authority of their male husbands a timless principel of holy
> and godly women, refering clear back to Sarah, who lived 3,000 years
> prior.

All of these verses you cite refer to the role of women *in marriage*.
These apply to marriage only. They do not tell us anything about
church organization.

> When you compare the entire Bible to the prohibitions of women
> teaching or holding authority over men, you see that both the norm of
> the entire Bible, and the context of specific passages which are
> addressed to the NT church, support the clear prohibitions of women
> teaching or holding authority over men.

Your position appears to be based primarily on two passages, I Tim 2
and I Cor 14. When I compare these to the entire Bible I see
instructions that, if taken as general principles, are inconsistent
with what is shown elsewhere. There are both OT and NT examples of
godly women holding authority and teaching. Therefore, I conclude that
these passages refer to specific situations -- I Tim refers to certain
heretical women; I Cor refers to certain women who were disrupting
worship by asking their husband questions.

Both of these interpretations are based on the surrounding passages.
I Tim describes the problem of heresy that Timothy was facing. I Cor
describes the chaotic worship services that Paul was trying to
correct.

[]

> You cannot simply state "that was just a cultural thing", when there
> is no evidence of such in the passage.

I am not saying that.

> Although it was written to a
> specific church, at a specific time, for specific reasons, it is still
> profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in
> righteousness, for the church of all ages.

I agree with this. However, I do not see how this verse shows that we
must apply Paul's instructions directly. I find it very profitable to
consider them in context to discover the principles in them which
apply to my life.

> If you cannot demonstrate
> from the passage itself, that the instruction does not apply to the
> church of this age (as passages which set aside the OT Law [Rom. 8;
> Gal. 3], and the ways of the world [Rom. 12:1ff.; Eph. 4 - 5; etc.] as
> ways of life do), or that it applies only in the way you say it does,
> then there is no authoritative basis for saying "it only applies to
> them".

I quite agree that we cannot arbitrarily decide that instructions do
not apply to us. It is not right to dismiss verses just because we
don't like them. The Bible is supposed to challenge us, to draw us
on to grow. Something is seriously wrong with us if the Bible makes
us feel complacent and comfortable.

> The context of each passage which prohibits women from teaching or
> holding authority over men, (let alone the direct, clear statement
> that they are not permitted to), gives every timeless reason for the
> instruction, and nothing which could be limited only to the people to
> whom the letter was written. These include:
>
> Because "God is not a God of confusion, but of order" (1 Cor. 14:33),
> "these things I write are the commandments of the Lord" (14:37),

In 1 Cor 14: 26-40, Paul addresses the problem of disorderly worship,
basing his comments on this timeless principle. Those who speak in
tongues without an interpreter, as well as women who are disrupting by
asking questions, are instructed to be silent (these women should ask
their husbands at home). Those who do speak are told to take turns.
Earlier, on the topic of worship, Paul told women to wear veils
while praying and prophesying, showing that these activities are
permitted.

> God made Adam chief" (1 Tim. 2:11ff.),

The context is a discussion of heresy. The reference to the story of
Adam and Eve stresses the deception of Eve. The prohibition applies to
women *who are heretics*. It is a timeless standard of godliness for
the Church that *heretics* should not teach or hold authority. Paul's
obvious approval of various women who taught and held authority shows
that it is not an instruction for women in general.

> "so that you may know how one
> ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church
> of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth....great is the
> mystery of godliness..." (1 Tim. 3:15).

This verse follows a description of the qualities to look for in
deacons. The most likely meaning of the expression "and the women
likewise" is that women are included in the office of deacon.
(Supported by the reference to Phoebe as a deacon, see above.)
Therefore this verses says nothing about excluding women from
authority.

[]

>>There are many examples of godly women in households with male
>>servants -- Sarah, for one. Do you think these women had no
>>authority over their servants because they were submissive to their
>>husbands?
>
> Well, Abraham does say that "Hagar", the egyptian woman, was under
> Sarah's control, but I don't see him saying that about his male
> servant whom he sent to get a wife for Isaac.

Seeing as Sarah was dead when the servant went to get Isaac's wife, it
is not likely that she held much authority over him at the time. :-)
You are right that we have no accounts of Sarah giving a male servant
an order, but it stretches credibility to conclude that she had no
authority over her male servants.

[]

>>Well then, let's follow Peter's advice. Let's consider the example of
>>Sarah in order to discover exactly what the Bible means by a
>>submissive wife. The incident concerning Hagar in Gen 16 is
>>instructive. Sarah told Abraham what to do and "Abram hearkened to the
>>voice of Sarai." In other words, he did what she told him.
>
> Nice try, but this was clearly the wrong thing for Abraham to do, as

[explanation deleted]

> promise. If you want to take back this example, I'll act like you
> never brought it up.

[]

I stand by it. It is not relevant to my point whether or not Sarah was
telling him to do something wrong. The point is that this example of
submissiveness was quite capable of telling her husband what to do.
And, concerning Hagar, God told Abraham, "whatever Sarah says to you,
do as she tells you." (Gen 21:12)

Jayne

[Jody319]

>Get off this cultural dismissal of clear
>Scripture prohibitions of women teaching or holding authority over men

I'm sorry that this statement gags me...but it does. I guess different strokes
for different folks...but I think that God in the end will make the final
determination...and I'm listening to His more feminine side...Jesus and the
Holy Spirit...telling me that culture is different and that roles do change.
God doesn't but man does.

Jody Spruill

[Anon]

jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
wrote:

>>>As I recall, the Greek word used to call Phoebe a deacon uses the

>>>masculine grammatical gender rather than feminine. (I don't have a
>>>Greek NT here -- perhaps somone could check this.) It is not likely
>>>that it would do this if the word was being used in the sense of a
>>>servant. Instead, this indicates that it refers to an office of deacon
>>>identical to that exercised by men.

The word used is "diakonon", which is the "accusative singular,
masculine and femenine" (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised 1978
Edition; Harold K. Moulton, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1977. It is used
to describe everything from slaves as servants, to appointed servants.

>> I did an exhaustive study on this word in a previous post. The word
>> "diakonos", means "to wait on", or "serve", and is used in a variety
>> of contexts, where it refers to everything from general acts of
>> service by slaves, to official acts of service.

>You are defining it as if it were a verb. "Diakonos" is a noun and
>the "-os" ending usually indicates masculine gender.

Yes, it is a noun. "One" who waits on, or "one" who serves. I did
say "it refers to...general acts of service".

>This is the same
>ending used when the word refers to men holding the position of
>deacon.

And it is also the same ending used when the word refers to slaves
(male or female) holding the position of servant. I don't think there
is any grammatical, or contextual reason we must conclude, by the use
of the word "diakonon", that Phoebe held the office of deacon refered
to in 1 Tim. 3, or that she in any way was leading or teaching men.

The following reference that Phoebe was a "helper" of many, as she was
of Paul also, indicates the sense in which Phoebe was a "servant".
Although in several places, this word "helper" does include ruling
over people, in Titus, and other places, the word is used of those who
maintain good works, or show mercy. We know she did not lead or teach
Paul, and yet it was in the sense in which she was a helper of Paul
that she was also a "helper" of many.

Even if Phoebe was an appointed, official servant of Cenchrea, I see
no grammatical, contextual, or comparative requirement that this also
means she ruled over or taught men.

>I don't know a lot of Greek but I majored in linguistics as an
>undergrad. In a gender-inflected language, when a masculine word is
>applied to a woman, it is often significant. For example, in French,
>if I say I am a "canadienne" (with the feminine ending) I am telling
>you my nationality. If I were to say I were a "Canadien" (with the
>masculine ending) I would be telling you that I am a member of
>Montreal's hockey team.

I think it can be demonstrated, from the usage of the word "diakonon",
in the context of every verse where it occurs in the NT, that it means
"servant", and can apply to everything from slaves (male or female) to
appointed servants. The context of the Phoebe reference says she was
a servant in the sense of being a helper of many as she was also of
Paul. The word helper can mean one who shows mercy or maintains good
works, and we know Phoebe was not a leader or teacher of the apostle
Paul. Even if she was an appointed, or elected servant of the church
of Cenchrea, why must we leap to the conclusion that this means she
ruled over and taught men? The context says she was a helper of many
as she was of Paul, and in no way did she teach or rule over Paul.

>> The context indicates
>> the manner in which Phoebe was a "diakonos", when it says that she was
>> "a helper" of Paul also.

>Paul, following the example of Christ, usually presents leadership as
>a form of service and helping others. He frequently refers to himself
>as a servant. Calling Phoebe "a helper" does not show that she did not
>hold authority.

When it says she was a helper of many and of Paul also, does this not
equate the sense in which she was a helper of Paul to the sense in
which she was a helper of many? And would you contend that she
instructed and ruled over the apostle Paul?

>> We know Phoebe was not instructing or
>> leading Paul,

>How do we know that? You are assuming that.

Dear God, I think she is.... o.k., reality check, here. The "apostle"
Paul. You know, the one Christ appointed as "an apostle and teacher
of the Gentiles"........The guy who wrote half of the NT...you
know...Paul the apostle, who had apostolic authority over all the
churches....

Phoebe?....exercising authority over and instructing the apostle
Paul?....God help thee woman; wake thyself up!

>>>When Paul tells the members of the church at Rome to "help her in
>>>whatever she may require of you" he is placing her in a position of
>>>authority over them. She has the authority make requirements of them.
>>>They are to do whatever she asks.

So if she was some authoritative, appointed church official, why did
Paul have to say anything more than that she was a "servant" of the
church of Cenchrea? Sorry, I just don't see the logic in concluding
that Paul telling people to help Phoebe help others, means Phoebe held
authority over those people.

>I don't know about a casual reader, but a reader who looks at the way
>"fellow laborer" is used will see that it usually refers to people who
>teach and hold authority.

>[Anon cites Php. 2:1-3]

>This passage is about fellowship. It does not show how Paul uses the
>term "fellow laborer." You seem to be confusing these two terms.

Look, the concept of being a fellow laborer (from "sun": "with", and
ergon "work") is broader than just this word. There are a variety of
words used to denote the sense in which Paul described these people as
sharing the gospel ministry. Such words as "one mind", "fellowship",
"fellow laborer", "fellow", "share", "kindred", "with", "same",
"like", and "partake", permeate the text, with at least 27 references.
All of these denote their participation, with Paul, in the gospel
ministry, and the abundant theme of Philippians is that you share the
mind and gospel ministry of Christ, 1) By abounding in love (chpt. 1);
2) By humbling yourself (2); 3) By wanting spiritual things (3); and
4) By promoting peace (4).

"I thank my God in all my rememberance of you, always offering prayer
with joy in my every prayer for you all, in view of your participation
in the gospel from the first day until now....only conduct yourselves
in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ; so that whether I come and
see you or remain absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm
in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the
gospel....For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only
to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, experiencing the
same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me"
(Philippians 1:3-5, 27, 29-30).

And chapter 2 says,

"Do all things without grumbling or disputing; that you may prove
yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above
reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom
you appear as lights in the world..." (2:14-15).

Here, Paul associates their participation in the gospel ministry with
their bearing of fruit (cf. v9-11), and standing in one spirit, mind,
and faith. It also includes a sharing of the same sufferings which
Paul experienced, and conducting themselves in a blameless manner in
the world. This is the way he describes sharing the gospel ministry
throughout the epistle.

Rather than furnish further lengthy examples of what it means to be a
fellow laborer in the gospel, though, I would just point out that, as
the word "diakonos" refers to service in general (whether of slaves or
of appointee's), the concept of sharing the gospel ministry denotes
general attitudes and actions of of love, unity, service, and
righteousness, as well as preaching or teaching the gospel.

There were people who were fellow laborers in all of the above senses,
and there were people who were fellow laborers only in some. Paul is
not presenting an office of authority and instruction when he
encourages the Philippians to continue participating in the gospel
ministry, but is calling for an attitude of love, humility,
spirituality, and peace among believers. Even when he mentions
Timothy and Epaphroditus, he makes reference to their child like
service (Timothy), and working to the point of sickness to supply
Paul's financial needs in prison (Ephaphroditus). The point is, that,
as with the word "diakonon", you cannot accurately conclude, just on
the basis of a reference to "fellow laborer", that someone was a
fellow laborer in the sense of ruling and teaching men.

>In the passage you cite occurs a description of Timothy, whom we know
>held a position of authority and teaching, as seen in the Epistles
>addressed to him.

Yes, but the sense in which the passage sets Timothy forth as an
example of participating in the gospel ministry is:

"For I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be
concerned for your welfare. For they all seek after their own
interests, not those of Christ Jesus. But you know of his proven
worth that he served with me in the furtherance of the gospel like a
child serving his father" (2:20-22). He has just finished telling the
Philippians to look out for the well being, or interests of others,
and not just their own interests (2:3-5), as did Christ (2:6-11), and
Timothy, and Epaphroditus.

>The other person mentioned is Epaphroditus, whom
>Paul calls, "my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your
>messenger and minister to my need." Since Paul writes of sending both
>Timothy and Epaphroditus, it seems likely that they fill similar
>functions. I do not see where you find manual labor in this passage.

"because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his
life to complete what was deficient in your service to me" (2:30).
Paul was in prison. The Philippians had apparently sent him some
financial assistance (4:10-19), which they lacked opportunity to
adequatley provide. Epaproditus, therefore, was a "minister to Paul's
need" (2:25), "risking his life to complete what was deficient in your
servict to me". So how else would Epaphroditus, who was with Paul in
prison, minister to Paul's financial needs to the point where he
became physically ill, if not by manual labor? Do you think he sat
with a beggars cup in front of the prison door?

>The other usage of "fellow laborer" (rather than fellowship) I found

>in this epistle was Php 4:3:...

See above. The concept of working with Paul in the gospel ministry is
described by a number of words, and is primarily presented as sharing
the mind of Christ, by abounding in love (chapter 1), humbling
yourself (chapter 2), wanting spiritual things (chapter 3), and
promoting peace (chapter 4).

>Can you show any other places where Paul refers to people as a fellow
>workers and we know from elsewhere what those people did? How many of
>them did not have positions of authority/teaching? So far, we have
>seen it referring to Priscilla, Timothy, Clement and Apollos, all of
>whom taught or held authority.

As shown above, both "diakonon", and "fellow laborer", describes the
service of those who taught and held authority, and those who bore the
fruit of the gospel in their attitudes and conduct. Unless the
context of the passage equates these words with the ministry of
teaching or holding authority over men, then there is no sound,
exegetical basis for reaching this conclusion.

I do not see a reference to a woman described by either word, which
necessitates a role of teaching or authority over men. The context of
the passage on Phoebe says she was a helper of many in the sense that
she was of Paul also, and there's no way you are going to show, from
the Bible, that she taught or held authority over the apostle Paul.

>> The other Scripture around
>> those prohibitions give timeless principles of godliness and God's
>> character, design, and will, and there is nothing in the passages
>> which suggests otherwise.

>The epistles, by their nature, are applications of timeless principles

>to specific sitations....

Yes, and the "specific situations" to which Paul is applying the
timeless principle of "godliness" (1 Tim. 3:15), is the situation of
whether or not women are permitted to teach or hold authority over men
(2:11ff.), and "how one ought to conduct himself in the household of

God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of

the truth." (3:15). To simply add the words "of that day", where they
do not occur in the text, is to render the entire Bible subject to the
interpretive whims of some who hold your view.

>When Paul gives a timeless principle as
>justification for an instruction, this does not show the instruction
>is itself a timeless priciple.

See above.

>We need other information to determine
>that. The main source is other passages throughout Scripture,
>although knowledge of culture and history also helps.

Other passages throughout Scripture are a valid cross reference, but
the context of the chapter and book in which the prohibitions occur
are equally or more important to determining the sense of the
prohibitions.

>>The context of the etire Bible establishes
>> men as God's normative agents of authority in every institution of
>> life,

>There are indeed many passages which show men being in authority. This
>does not establish it as God's standard.

And yet some who hold your view are holding forth a handful of
references which do not even conclusively show women in positions of
authority and instruction over men, as if they do establish a timeless
standard for authority of women over men in the NT church, even though
the overwhelming mass of data from the entire Bible does clearly and
conclusively show that men are God's normative agents of authority in
every institution of life. It seems to me, you are searching all day
for a four leaf clover, then when you finally think you find one or
two in a vast field of three leafed clovers, you hold them forth as
the standard rather than the exception, and deny that there is any
relevance to the fact that the vast field of clovers have only three
leaves.

>There are also many passages which show slavery.
>There are also many passages which show a pastoral/ agricultural society.
>There are also many passages which
>show government by monarchy. The social structures described in the Bible
>are not necessarily norms of behaviour for all time.

Look, aren't you the one who wants to support your view from
references "throughout the Bible", whenever the immediate context
clearly refutes your view? I quote your words:

>When Paul gives a timeless principle as
>justification for an instruction, this does not show the instruction
>is itself a timeless priciple. We need other information to determine
>that. The main source is other passages throughout Scripture,
>although knowledge of culture and history also helps.

When you have a plethera of different societies and cultures, over
thousands of years, ranging from Adam, in the garden of Eden, to
fallen man in the pre-flood Gentile society, to the Gentile world
after the flood, to the nation Israel, to the NT church which is a new
creation of God from all cultures and peoples, etc., and in every
case, the men are overwhelmingly presented as God's normative agents
of authority, does that not demonstrate a principle which transcends
time, racial, social, and cultural barriers?

Add to this that God gives specific revelation to the NT church that
man, is the head of woman just as Christ is head of the church, and
God is the head of Christ (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5; Col. 3; 1 Pet. 3:1-6),
and that women are not to teach or hold authority over men in the
church of the living God (1 Tim. 2:11ff. cf. 3:15), and you have
overwhelming, solid, exegetical proof that the instructions for men to
be in authority, and women not to teach or usurp authority over men is
a timeless standard of godliness for the NT church to follow.

The arrogance which equates today's culture, with its emphasis on
women gaining equal authority as men, and which is resulting in more
divorces, general rebellion, crime, and disentegration of the family
unit, with God's will for the church of this age, is apalling, and
contradicts the plain teaching of God's word.

The "pride and condemnation of the devil" (1 Tim. 3:6) was that he
wanted to share God's authority (Isaiah 14), and this is the first
thing Satan tried to convince Eve to seek when he tempted her in the
garden of Eden. He first cast a doubt on the plain instruction of
God, tried to make God seem strict for making a single prohibiton,
then got her to envy equality with God which she would supposedly
attain by rebelling against God, and then flatly denied the plain
teaching of God's Word.

>Is it God's will that we restore
>slavery? Should the United States have a king rather than a president? Should
>we shut down all the factories and return to the land? All these
>things have as good a biblical basis as your belief in male authority.

As shown more extensively in a previous post, when God changes
stewardship requirements for his people, He informs them of such in
the Bible. The NT covers events, for the church, through the removal
of the church from earth (1 Thess. 4:13-18), and on into the future
millennial and eternal kingdom of Christ on earth (Revelation 20-22).

"Ways of life", which is what "culture" means (unless you are using
the alternate meaning of the arts, which would really be odd in this
context), for God's people, are determined by the will of God, and
God's will is not determined by people's ways of life. The Bible
repeatedly shows that God saves his people from the ways of the world,
and society, and that they are His peculiar people, who are to walk in
the new ways of their new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5; Eph. 4 - 5;
etc.).

When God's people's ways change, it is because He changes His program
with them. For example, Adam's and Eve's God ordained culture ("ways

of life"), was to keep the garden, and avoid eating of the tree of the

To simply say "in that day", or some such thing, as if specific
instructions on how to behave in a godly manner in the church of the
living God, pertain only to the exact time, and to the exact people to

whom the Bible was originally written, makes the whole Bible subject
to the interprative whims of those who hold your view. If you don't
like any particular "way of life" which the Bible is calling for, you
simply say it was only for "that culture". This principle of
interpretation renders the entire Bible potentially irrelevant, since
the entire Bible was written in the context of local situations, to
specific groups of people. The Bible cannot be the subject of such
variant, interprative whims.

>Just because illustrations of males in authority occur more frequently

>than females in authority, we cannot conclude that this reveals male
>authority as God's will.

And yet aren't you the one who brought up the subject of needing to
compare what the rest of the Bible says, with the context of specific
prohibitions of women teaching or holding authority over men, when
those specific prohibitions clearly refuted your view?

>It is highly significant that there are any
>examples of female authority at all, since this was contrary to the
>surrounding culture.

You seem to act as if "culture", which means "ways of life", is a self
existing entity which is higher in authority than the Bible itself, in
determining God's will for His people. God's will for His people is
what determines their ways of life, and it is not ways of life which
people choose for themselves, which overrides, or determines God's
will. If God commands men to be fill the earth, and the people
determine a way of life which is contrary to this, by building the
tower of Babel, and determining not to be scattered about the face of
the earth, then their "culture", or ways of life which they choose,
and live in do not mean that God's will for them now becomes the same
as the ways of life which they have chosen for themself. This is why
God confused their language, and scattered them across the face of the
earth. This has been shown by numerous examples, above, where God
saves His people out from the ways of life in which they world and
they are living, and gives them a new way of life.

>That godly women could attain these positions in
>these circumstances indicates the hand of God at work. How can you
>then say that it was against God's will?

The only reference I see, which clearly shows that God put a woman in
a position of authority or instruction over men, is in the book of
Judges, regarding Deborah. This constitutes neither an overwhelming
pattern throughout the Bile, as do the multitude of examples of male
leadership, nor a specific instruction to the NT church, as does 1
Cor. 11:3; 14:33ff.; 1 Tim. 2:11ff.; 3:15; Eph. 5; Col. 3; 1 Pet.
3:1-6, etc.

>All of these verses you cite refer to the role of women *in marriage*.
>These apply to marriage only. They do not tell us anything about
>church organization.

1 Tim. 3 says a church leader "must be one who manages *his* household
well...but if a *man* does not know how to manage *his* own household,
how will he take care of the church of God?" (3:4-5; emphasis mine).
Since the ability to manage one's own household is a prerequisit to
managing the church of God, passages which show that men are the head
of the household are extremely relevant to the qualifications for
church leadership.

Besides, 1 Cor. 14:33ff.; 1 Tim. 2:11ff.; 3:15 all refer to church
organization, and they state, in no uncertain terms that women are not
permitted to teach or hold authority over men, in the church of the
living God.

>> When you compare the entire Bible to the prohibitions of women
>> teaching or holding authority over men, you see that both the norm of
>> the entire Bible, and the context of specific passages which are
>> addressed to the NT church, support the clear prohibitions of women
>> teaching or holding authority over men.

>Your position appears to be based primarily on two passages, I Tim 2
>and I Cor 14. When I compare these to the entire Bible I see
>instructions that, if taken as general principles, are inconsistent
>with what is shown elsewhere. There are both OT and NT examples of
>godly women holding authority and teaching.

Look, when I showed that the overwhelming pattern of the Bible is that
men are God's agents of authority in every institution of life you
admitted:

>Just because illustrations of males in authority occur more frequently
>than females in authority, we cannot conclude that this reveals male
>authority as God's will.

Yet you now propose that your less frequent (gross understatement)
handful of verses, which mostly do little more than mention a woman's
name, constitutes the Bible pattern. amd supports your view, even
though it contradicts the plain language of 1 Tim. 2:11ff.; 3:15; and
1 Cor. 14, while my "more frequent" references support the plain
prohibition.

This, again, is like looking for a four leaf clover, then thinking
you've found a couple in the vast field of three leafed clovers, and
concluding that your "four leafed" clovers establish a normal standard
for clovers which overrides the pattern of the vast field. The
prohibition of women teaching or holding authority over men is plain
and clear, and it is in agreement with the vast field of references,
from one cover of the Bible to the other, that men are God's ordained
agents of authority in every institution of life.

>Therefore, I conclude that
>these passages refer to specific situations -- I Tim refers to certain
>heretical women;

It refers to "how one ought to conduct himself in the household of

God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of

the truth." (1 Tim. 3:15).

>I Cor refers to certain women who were disrupting
>worship by asking their husband questions.

It refers to "women" in general, and is based on the fact that "God is
not a God of confusion but of peace." (33), that women should subject
themselves (34), the Lord's commandment (37), and that if anyone does
not acknowledge this, he should not be recognized (38).

>Both of these interpretations are based on the surrounding passages.
>I Tim describes the problem of heresy that Timothy was facing.

And says, "I am writing these things to you...so that you may know how

one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the
church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

(3:14-15).

>I Cor
>describes the chaotic worship services that Paul was trying to
>correct.

The fact that God reveals His will for the NT church, through specific
examples in the Corinthian church, no more limits this instruction to
that specific church, than the passage in 1 Cor. 15, which says the
Corinthians will be resurrected from the dead with an incorruptible
body, therefore means that only the Corinthians will be raised, etc..
The passage addresses the church, regarding a proper role of
subjection for women in the worship service (14:34), and if the church
has deviated from these ways over time, their decision to change their
ways, or "culture", is no overriding authority over the Bible, and
God's will for the ways of life of the NT church.

>> You cannot simply state "that was just a cultural thing", when there
>> is no evidence of such in the passage.

>I am not saying that.

>> Although it was written to a
>> specific church, at a specific time, for specific reasons, it is still
>> profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in
>> righteousness, for the church of all ages.

>I agree with this. However, I do not see how this verse shows that we
>must apply Paul's instructions directly. I find it very profitable to
>consider them in context to discover the principles in them which
>apply to my life.

And the principle is "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for
they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just
as the Law also says."

>> If you cannot demonstrate
>> from the passage itself, that the instruction does not apply to the
>> church of this age (as passages which set aside the OT Law [Rom. 8;
>> Gal. 3], and the ways of the world [Rom. 12:1ff.; Eph. 4 - 5; etc.] as
>> ways of life do), or that it applies only in the way you say it does,
>> then there is no authoritative basis for saying "it only applies to
>> them".

>I quite agree that we cannot arbitrarily decide that instructions do
>not apply to us. It is not right to dismiss verses just because we
>don't like them. The Bible is supposed to challenge us, to draw us
>on to grow. Something is seriously wrong with us if the Bible makes
>us feel complacent and comfortable.

>> God made Adam chief" (1 Tim. 2:11ff.),

>The context is a discussion of heresy. The reference to the story of
>Adam and Eve stresses the deception of Eve. The prohibition applies to
>women *who are heretics*. It is a timeless standard of godliness for
>the Church that *heretics* should not teach or hold authority.

And the context is a discussion of "how one ought to conduct himself

in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the

pillar and support of the truth." (3:15; cf. cf. "these things I write
so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself..."). The
immediate context has shifted to the proper roles of men and women in
the NT church of the living God. It does not say that women are not
permitted to teach or hold authority over men "if they are heretics",
but says "women" are not permitted to teach or hold authority over men
"because" it was Adam whom was created "chief".

>Paul's
>obvious approval of various women who taught and held authority shows
>that it is not an instruction for women in general.

Again, Paul approved of the minsitry of various women, but not for a
ministry of teaching or holding authority over men, as you claim (cf.
Phoebe was a helper of many in the sense she was of Paul, and in no
way taught or held authority over an apostle; cf. Priscilla did not
teach alone, but with her husband, did not teach in a church, but took
Apollos "aside", and is nowhere refered to as holding a teaching
ministry, on her own, in the church, or over men; cf. the Bible, and
personal experience confirm that people credit other people with
actions by association even if they do not themselves do the action.
For example, John 4, credits Christ with baptizing more disciples than
John the baptist, but then gives the parenthetical explanation that He
himself did not baptize anyone, but His disicples did. Also, for
example, if your husband drives you and yourself out of town to visit
relatives, he may relay the story to others by saying that his wife
and he drove over to their relatives, even though the husband may have
done all the driving.)

>> "so that you may know how one
>> ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church
>> of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth....great is the
>> mystery of godliness..." (1 Tim. 3:15).

>This verse follows a description of the qualities to look for in
>deacons.

But includes "these things I write to you...so that you may know how
one ought to cnoduct himself in the household of God." The previous
instructions about praying for all men, the proper adornment of women,
and the prohibition of women from teaching or holding authority over
men, is included in "these things" that Paul wrote about church
conduct.

>The most likely meaning of the expression "and the women
>likewise" is that women are included in the office of deacon.
>(Supported by the reference to Phoebe as a deacon, see above.)
>Therefore this verses says nothing about excluding women from
>authority.

It is not "the most likely meaning" that this refers to a separate
office for women. A case could be made for either view, and at best,
it is not clear whether it refers to a separate office for women, or
wives of deacons. Paul has just said women are not permitted to hold
authority over men (2:11ff.), and even if this does allow an office of
service for women, it does not require or permit this office to hold
authority over men in the church.

>>>Well then, let's follow Peter's advice. Let's consider the example of
>>>Sarah in order to discover exactly what the Bible means by a
>>>submissive wife. The incident concerning Hagar in Gen 16 is
>>>instructive. Sarah told Abraham what to do and "Abram hearkened to the
>>>voice of Sarai." In other words, he did what she told him.
>>
>> Nice try, but this was clearly the wrong thing for Abraham to do, as
>[explanation deleted]

I see why you deleted the explanation, because after proposing that
Sarah set an example of telling Abraham what to do, I showed, from the
passage itself, that Sarah herself acknowledged that asking him to
sleep with Hagar was wrong, and that God also said it was wrong in
chapter 17, and that Galatians sets this whole incident forth as an
example of trying to attain salvation in the strength of the flesh,
something which results in eternal damnation (Gal. 4; cf. 1:9; 5:1ff.)

>I stand by it. It is not relevant to my point whether or not Sarah was
>telling him to do something wrong. The point is that this example of
>submissiveness was quite capable of telling her husband what to do.

And quite capeable of being wrong for telling him this, as the passage
and several other cross references clearly state.

>And, concerning Hagar, God told Abraham, "whatever Sarah says to you,
>do as she tells you." (Gen 21:12)

That was God telling Abraham to let Sarah send Hagar away, after he
previously forbade it, because Ishmael, the son who was born as a
result of Sarah's wrong request of Abraham, would not be the heir of
God, as Sarah and Abraham thought, and as the culture of Abraham's day
would have been, for the eldest son to inherit the blessing. The
whole incident confirms the folly of following the instructions of
your wife rather than the Word of God.

The same thing also happeneded to Isaac, when Jacob, and not Esau the
firstborn and rightful heir according to the culture, custom, and ways
of that day, was selected to inherit the blessing (cf. Romans 9).

[opthalamion]

Anon wrote:

> I showed about a dozen timeless, non-cultural reasons, from the
> immediate context of the passages which prohibit women from teaching
> or holding authority over a man, themselves.

These are not available to me. Could you repost them in any reply,
in order that I might address them?

> I asked for one shred of

> evidence within those same passages, which would indicate that the
> prohibitions were only cultural.

The question is, I think, mistaken in this case. You are responding
to the claim that cultural conditions resulted in the statement
of prohibition. I will assume for the moment that the thread was
discussing 1Tim 2.12. (There are other sexist prohibitions which I
believe are in fact culturally determined -- specifically the
one regarding speaking in church in 1Cor which contradicts the
earlier statement about prophetesses speaking in church, and which
I believe relates to the typical separation of the sexes in the
synagogue -- a cultural factor which is not longer present).
I do not believe that this passage is the result of a cultural
factor, but a contemporary theological one. Failing to understand
the contemporary theological context, specifically the current
gnostic heresies to which Paul was responding results in a failure
to correctly understand the passage. This is compounded by a
textual problem, which historically has resulted in mistranslation
of the word "authelein". (My discussion of this point is inspired
almost entirely by the work of Don Rousu.)

Specifically, Paul was responding to a gnostic heresy which held
that women were progenitors of humanity (Adam a decendent of Eve),
that the serpent introduced true knowledge, against the will of a
corrupt demiurge creator. Thus Paul observes the correct order of
creation and temptation according to Genesis. This is held by
all of the churches of God.

When Paul observes "oude authelein andros" he uses a word which has
demonstrably changed meaning over time. In late koine (200 A.D., sub.)
it meant authority. In the apostolic koine (at the time of his writing)
it meant authorship. In the classical era it had yet a third related
but clearly distinct meaning. By the time Jerome translated the
Vulgate, the fathers of the church understood the word to mean
authority, and on this basis they rejected the original apostolic
practice of ordaining women as deacons, apostles, bishops, as is
recorded in the writings of the fathers and the council canons.
They did not have the benefit of the printing press, and thus much
of the textual evidence demonstrating the meaning of this word was
inaccessible to contemporary scholarship, and the translation was
defective. Paul was referring to women claiming the position
and (by implication) the right of
authorship, as representatives of Eve, progenitor of all mankind,
as a result of the heretical gnostic doctrines which this passage
addresses. Such women are constrained not to address the church,
for this would be to teach heresy.

If you will please review the text now, understanding the intention
of the author as I describe above, I think that you will find that
it's original meaning is much more clear. If you do so, please
tell me of any contrary evidence you find in scripture, for I aim to
understand the scripture correctly, and wish to recognize the merits
of any alternative understanding.

[Michael C. Horsch]

Anon wrote:

>

> Colossians 2 warns against submitting yourself to the reasonings of

> men whose teachings do not come from Christ, the head, but from their

> own puffed up, fleshly imaginations. Your views do not come from

> Christ, else they could be supported from the Bible.

You have misinterpreted my views. I have not, and I have been very

careful in this regard, expressed to you my views on the ordination

of women. Any views you have attributed to me on this subject were

established by inferences which are the exact nature of my interest.

You have created a theory (about me) a priori -- since before this
time we have never interacted -- and have used this pre-conceived
theory to draw wildly unsubstantiated conclusions about my beliefs.

I hope you can see the parallel between the way you responded to
my article (by making assumptions about my purpose) and
the way you respond to scripture (by making assumptions about
its content and purpose). In the first case, the assumptions
you made were inappropriate; in the second case, your response
may be appropriate after all, but you have yet to make your case
explicit. In both cases, you used your human wisdom, such as it
is, to draw conclusions.

I maintain that there is more to your belief system than
meets the eye (your eye, at least). Here is a short "thought
experiment" which might help clear things up. But be aware
that by this experiment, I am not making any unreasonable
claims. This is an opportunity, not a challenge.

I have a short book in my possession. It claims to be the absolute

truth from God. It also claims that salvation is through strawberry

ice cream, in copious quantities. It has as much internal

consistency as the Bible, but is also in contradiction to the

Bible. Which of the two do you believe? Both make the same

claims for themselves. If you were to meditate on strawberry
ice cream, why wouldn't a fierce devotion to my little book
develop in you, as has been developed in you for the Bible?

I know the answers to my questions full well. They are not

spiritual questions, but human questions, because the induction

of belief is a human experience -- it happens to a human being.
That God plays a role in human experience makes human experience
interesting, and unworthy of your all too hasty dismissal. It
is my contention that human reason, which you eschew in form
and content, is a function of human experience. If God plays
a role in our experience, do we reject all human reason?

[James A. Sledd]

Anon (an...@anon.com) wrote:

: Are you a christian? Do you rely on the death and resurrection of
: Christ alone, as your only and all sufficient payment for sin?

What else *can* I do. I am not worthy on my own merits to ascend
into heaven. Of this I am keenly aware. Are you also aware of your
shortcomings?

[Anon]

opthalamion <optha...@pobox.com> wrote:

>Anon wrote:

>> I showed about a dozen timeless, non-cultural reasons, from the
>> immediate context of the passages which prohibit women from teaching
>> or holding authority over a man, themselves.

>These are not available to me. Could you repost them in any reply,
>in order that I might address them?

Here is material from a reply I made to someone else, which includes
the data you are requesting:

What Biblical evidence is there that any given passage applies only to
the culture of it's day? Nice try, but the entire Bible was written
to specific people of God, at certain times. To dismiss passages
which conflict with one's views based on this principle alone, is to
render the entire Bible irrelevant.

Further, every reason given in the context of passages which prohibit
women from teaching or holding authority over men is blatently
non-cultural:

You have a passage where Peter calls the "submission", "obedience",
and "quiet spirit" of women, a standard of "godliness" and "holiness".
He uses, as an example of this, one of the "holy women of old",
Sarah, who lived 3,000 years before his time (1 Pet. 3:1-6). This
principle of roles of submission for women is clearly a standard of
"godliness", and "holiness", and is not a standard of "culture".

The overwhelming mass of Biblical data presents men as God's
agents of authority on earth. God is a male. Christ is a man. All
the books of the Bible were written by men. All the OT covenants were
made with men (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David). Families are always
reckoned under the headship of men. Men are put in charge of the
Levitical worship system. The kings of Israel were always men. The
apostles were all men. This overwhelming mass of data establishes
male leadership as God's standard.

In the epistle which is specifically written for the purpose of giving
instructions on the qualifications for church offices, and roles of
people in the church, 1 Tim. 2:11ff. plainly states that women are not
permitted to teach, or hold authority over a man. I quote the summary
statement in 3:15:

"...but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one
ought to conduct himself in the household of God [not the culture of
today], which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support
of the truth. And by common confession great is the mystery of
godliness [not cultural hipness] ;..."

What Paul has just written is expressly stated as an instruction on
how to conduct yourself in the House of God [not according to the
culture of the day], and this is explained as a principle of
"godliness" [not culture].

To prove that the reasons given in each passage which prohibits women
from teaching, or exercising authority over men, are based on timeless
standards of God's nature and godliness, and not on culture, consider
the following reasons which the passages themselves give for the
prohibition, and then show one bit of evidence from the same passages,
that these reasons are invalid, and only cultural:

* "God is not a God of confusion, but of order" [not "God is a God of
today's culture"] (1 Cor. 14:33),

* "the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord" [not
"popular culture"] (1 Cor. 14:37),

* "whoever does not recognize this is not recognized" (1 Cor. 14:38),

* God created Adam chief" ["protos" is used repeatedly throughout the
NT, to denote being first both in time and rank] (1 Tim. 2:13),

* "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite
deceived, fell into transgression." (1 Tim. 2:14),

* "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head
of the church" [not "as the culture of the day suggests] (Eph. 5:23),

* "But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to
be to their husbands in everything." [equated with Christ's timeless
relation to the church, not the culture of the day] (Eph. 5:24),

* "Wives be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord" [not
"as is fitting in today's culture] (Colossians 3:18),

* "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your husbands so that
even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won
without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your
chaste and respectful behavior [salvation of husband, and not culture,
is in view here]. And let not your adornment be merely
external--brading the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on
dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the
IMPERISHABLE [this quality is not contemporary, or limited to the
culture of the day, but is "imperishable", emphasis mine] quality of a
gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God [not
"the culture of our day"]. For in this way in former times the HOLY
[not "culturally hip"] women also, who hoped in God, [not who kept the
culture of the day], used to adorn themselves, being submissive to
their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and
you havee become her children if you do what is right [not culturally
hip, but "right"] without being frightened by any fear." (1 Peter
3:1-6).

Further considerations, along these lines, are found in another of my
replies to someone else:

Godliness is not subject to change. It is an eternal, unchanging

character. "Ways of life", which is what "culture" means (unless you

To simply say "in that day", or some such thing, as if timeless
principles of godliness pertain only to the exact time, and to the

exact people to whom the Bible was originally written, makes the whole
Bible subject to the interprative whims of those who hold your view.

If you don't like any particular "way of life" which the Bible is

calling for, you simply say it was only for "that culture". This
principle of interpretation renders the entire Bible potentially
irrelevant, since the entire Bible was written in the context of local
situations, to specific groups of people. The Bible cannot be the
subject of such variant, interprative whims.

** Please address these in plain, straightforward , concise language,
using your own words and ideas. I appreciate the effort you made to
relay the teaching of the guy you read, but got lost in the maze.**

[Anon]

Inconsistencies in interpretation by those who insist women may teach
or usurp authority over men:

* No matter how plain, direct, or clear the prohibition of women
teaching or exercising authority over men, prohibitions are always
only cultural, and therefore only apply only to the specific time to
which they were written, yet whenever the passage may possibly offer
support for their view, it becomes a timeless standard for the church
today.

* When confronted with the plain statements prohibiting women from
teaching or holding authority over men, some insist that we must make
a contrary interpretation of that statement in light of "other
references throughout the Bible", namely the sparse handful of
scattered references strewn together to support their ideas. Yet when
one goes along with this principle, and shows from the entire Bible
that men are overwhelmingly presented as God's normative agents of
authority in all ages, cultures, and institutions, it is said that
this proves nothing, it applies only to a patriarchal culture.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have your handful of
scattered, sparse references "throughout the Bible", forming an
overriding authority which mandates an interpretation of the plain
prohibitions which is contrary to plain speech, and then deny as
irrelevant, an overwhelming mass of data, throughout the Bible, which
establishes men as God's normative agents of authority in all ages,
cultures, and institutions. If the overwhelming mass of verses which
show that men are God's normative agents of authority in every age,
culture, and institution, are irrelevant, then so are the handful of
sparse references, "throughout the Bible", used to insist on a
contrary interpretion of the clear prohibitions of women from teaching
or exercising authority over men. If the overwhelming mass of data is
not irrelevant, then it, and not the handful of scattered, sparse
references used to insist on a contradictory interpretation, supports
the plain statement that women are not permitted to teach or hold
authority over men.

The issue is whether women are permitted to teach or hold authority
over men in the NT church. The NT epistle which was most specifically
written to answer this matter, is 1 Timothy, which was written, "that
you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God,
which is the church of the living God". This epistle, regarding how
one ought to conduct themself in the church of the living God, says,
"Let a women quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man,
but to remain quiet." (2:11-12 NAS)

The basis of this authority to make the prohibition is found in 2:7,
where it says, "I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am
telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in
faith and truth. Therefore I want the men....(8), Likewise I want the
women...(9ff.). This is not just Paul's opinion, it is based on
Paul's authority as a Christ appointed preacher, apostle, and teacher
of the Gentiles, and is an authoritative instruction from Christ,
through Paul, for the NT church of all ages, as confirmed in the
summary statement in 3:15-16, "I write so that you may know how one
ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church

of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. And by common

confession great is the mystery of godliness..."

The context of this reference gives the reason for the prohibition of
women teaching or holding authority over men as because God made Adam
chief (13), because Adam was not deceived (13b), and because the woman
was deceived (14). This event, which occured thousands of years
earlier, in a completely different culture, and time, is applied to
the NT church, as an explanation of why "women" are not permitted "to
teach or exercise authority over a man" in the NT church. It is just
as relevant an explanation of why women are not permitted to teach or
hold authority over men today, as the explanation, in Genesis, that
man has to labor by the sweat of his brow to earn a living, because of
his part in the fall, is an explanation of why men have to labor for
their food today.

The overwhelming mass of Biblical data, from Bible cover to Bible
cover, is in agreement with this statement, as it abundantly presents
men as God's normative agents of authority in every time, culture, and
institution of life. No single reference, or handful of scattered
verses strewn together, clearly or conclusively presents a case which
requires a contrary interpretation to the plain language of this
massive amount of data, or the specific prohibition of women teaching
or holding authority over men given in the most relevant NT epistle
bearing on the subject of women in relation to the ministry.

[P.WOININ]

Jayne wrote
"Such irony -- a man defends the status quo by accusing women of static
thinking." and add "I was not going to bother replying to this".
This kind of answer if in itself a 'static thinking' as a 'not bothering'
statement shows that Jayne is not accessible to arguments outside her usual
frame of thinking.

Anyway, the 'status quo' to she refers has nothing to do with the evolution
of spirituality. If the 'man' prieshood looks like a 'statu-quo', it means
simply an adherance to he best direction able to support real spiritual
progress.
Nowadays too many call progress, what looks more like decadence, even it is
supported by many 'feminist' movements in the church.

Jayne further stated: " Rest assured that Pierre's opinions have even less
of a basis in RC doctrine than they do in observable reality."

She did not take into account, or recall, what I wrote her in another
message: " One of the direction in which I shall not follow you, and
probably many
members fo this group, is to use the Bible as many lawyers use
jurisprudence. My faith is not vulnerable to the discovery of one verse
which seems to contradict a previous apprehension of the whole meaning."
And the same can be said about the Catholic teachings.
Seen from Europe, the North American Catholic church appears now too
concerned to please the actual 'culture' .

Jayne add about the Catholic view of the differences between men and women:
" Pierre's assigning of stereotypes is his own invention."
Sure, and I can propose many many more if needed. Here I give back the one
I Emailed in answer to her statement " What is it about being a priest
that makes it a male function?" -... what is about a chess player that
makes all top-chess players are men?

Simply to show that they are as many intellectual difference between men
and women than physiological ones.

What concerns me in the feminist approach to priesthood is the frequent
referrence to authority and power (reflected by Jayne in her last message),
while priesthood is first of all a 'service'. That is why I also have
strong doubts about the purity feminist intentions.

Jayne wrote also: " The RCC rejects the ordination of women because of its
sacramental theology. A basic tenet is that sacraments are instituted by
Christ and therefore the Church does not have authority to change them."
Here only two approach are possible:
Or we accept the sacramanent without looking further, and the discussion is
closed anyway.
Or we try to progress in the understanding of the sacramament, its wisdom,
its mystery. This is what I am doing.

Jayne continues by writing "..I frequently hear and see people disagreeing
with male-only priesthood who do not address the Church's reasoning at
all."
Thus adhering to the Catholic church teaching is not good, we must address
(contest?) the church 'reasoning', but only as some feminist do.
One thing I easily concede to many women, is that they make excellent
lawyers.

And she terminates like this:
"One can argue much more effectively when one knows what one is talking
about."
Thanks, so those who shall put their congregation in the hand of feminists
can now be sure of what expects them. If they do not agree, if the men do
not submit themselves to the women thinking patterns, they will bannished
from any further exchange, probably from their church.
Not adhering to women views can even be a dangerous game, it costs John the
Baptist his head.

Cheers,
Pierre

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

> Inconsistencies in interpretation by those who insist women may teach
> or usurp authority over men:

I have not noticed anyone questioning that women should not *usurp*
authority. By definition usurping means to take wrongfully.
Obviously neither women nor men should take authority they are not
entitled to. What is in question is whether or not women should ever
*hold* authority over men.

[]

> * When confronted with the plain statements prohibiting women from
> teaching or holding authority over men, some insist that we must make
> a contrary interpretation of that statement in light of "other
> references throughout the Bible", namely the sparse handful of
> scattered references strewn together to support their ideas.

You have presented two of these allegedly "plain statements." In both
cases, the immediate context can support interpreting the instruction
as applying to certain specific women, rather than to women in
general. (I have presented this evidence in other posts.) However,
there is enough ambiguity that it is not impossible that they are
meant as general instructions.

Therfore we need to look at the rest of Scripture to see which of
these interpretations is consistent with it. Just one example of Paul
placing a woman in authority is enough to show that my interpretation
is the consistent one. Even you admit that this is the case concerning
Phoebe in Rom 16, although you try to explain it away as authority
that is derived from Paul rather than true authority.

> Yet when
> one goes along with this principle, and shows from the entire Bible
> that men are overwhelmingly presented as God's normative agents of
> authority in all ages, cultures, and institutions, it is said that
> this proves nothing, it applies only to a patriarchal culture.

If you had indeed proved that men were *God's* normative agents of
authority, it would apply in all cultures. You have not proved it. The
Bible describes ages, cultures and institutions in which male
authority was the norm. However, there are many norms described in
the Bible that are not God's norm. Do you really think that slavery,
monarchy and agricultural societies are God's norm? They are certainly
shown as being normative in the Bible.

Mere description of social structures in the Bible does not show that
they are God's will for all time. Sometimes they simply reflect the
culture in which God's recorded dealings with humanity took place. If
a practice is actually God's will for all time, we need further
evidence than what you have provided.

The only area where you have made a reasonable case for male authority
being God's will is within the marriage relationship. Apparently by
analogy, you conclude that male authority is God's will for the Church.
This is not sufficient grounds for concluding this. (The only
Scriptural analogy that compares Church to marriage, is that Christ is
to Church as husband is to wife.)

On the contrary, we have Gal 3:28 showing God's will for the Church is
that there is "neither male nor female ... in Christ Jesus." You have
claimed that this only refers to their equality as children of God,
but does not affect the authority of their roles in the Church. To
test this interpretation we can compare it to the other divisions
expressed in this verse. Do Jews and Greeks have differents roles in
the Church? No. Do slaves and free have different roles in the Church?
No, although Christian slaves and masters may have different roles in
relation to each other. Similarly, husband and wife are roles in
relationship to each other, but do not tell us that there are
different roles for women and men in the Church.

> You can't have it both ways.

This is not a question of "having it both ways."

The references to women teaching, having authority and leading worship
are significant in that they describe something that does not
conform to the surrounding culture. While all the descriptions of men
in authority could simply be due to cultural influences, descriptions
of women in authority indicates that something else is at work. I
contend that this something else is the hand of God.

In the OT, when women like Deborah or Huldah are shown in authority
they are clearly shown as instruments of God's will. Similarly, the
instances of women in authority in the NT are descriptions of women
doing God's will or such women being commended and/or affectionately
greeted by Paul. How can you say that God wants only men to be in
authority in the face of this?

> You can't have your handful of
> scattered, sparse references "throughout the Bible", forming an
> overriding authority which mandates an interpretation of the plain
> prohibitions which is contrary to plain speech,

As I said, your two "plain prohibitions" are not plain. There are good
grounds to believe that they only apply to specific situations rather
than to women in general. The references to women in authority
throughout the Bible do not "override" these prohibitions. They
show whether the general or specific interpretation is more
consistent with the rest of the Bible.

> and then deny as
> irrelevant, an overwhelming mass of data, throughout the Bible, which
> establishes men as God's normative agents of authority in all ages,
> cultures, and institutions.

Descriptions of men in authority do not establish this as God's norm.

[]

> "Let a women quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
> But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man,
> but to remain quiet." (2:11-12 NAS)

Just previous to this passage, Paul was writing about the heretical
teachers who were causing problems in this church. Was Paul advising
women to receive the teaching from these heretical men "with entire
submissiveness"? Obviously not. It is clear from the context that they
were supposed to reject it. The instruction to receive teaching
quietly applies only when the teachers are not heretics. Similarly, the
prohibition against teaching applies only to heretical women teachers.

[]

> The context of this reference gives the reason for the prohibition of
> women teaching or holding authority over men as because God made Adam
> chief (13), because Adam was not deceived (13b), and because the woman
> was deceived (14).

[]

It does not make sense to interpret these verses as showing that women
in general are easily deceived and therefore forming the basis for a
general prohibition. If they meant that women in general were easily
deceived this would mean that women should *never* teach or have
authority. This contradicts clear instructions to women to teach other
women and to have authority over their children.

The comments about Eve may be in order to show another situation where
a woman was deceived and then proceeded to deceive others. It is also
possible that Paul was here addressing specific false teachings of the
heretics. The gnostics were characterized by wrong interpretations of
Genesis.

Jayne

[Anon]

jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
wrote:

>an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

>I have not noticed anyone questioning that women should not *usurp*
>authority. By definition usurping means to take wrongfully.
>Obviously neither women nor men should take authority they are not
>entitled to.
>What is in question is whether or not women should ever
>*hold* authority over men.

NAS accurately translates, "exercise".

>> * When confronted with the plain statements prohibiting women from
>> teaching or holding authority over men, some insist that we must make
>> a contrary interpretation of that statement in light of "other
>> references throughout the Bible", namely the sparse handful of
>> scattered references strewn together to support their ideas.

>You have presented two of these allegedly "plain statements." In both
>cases, the immediate context can support interpreting the instruction
>as applying to certain specific women, rather than to women in
>general. (I have presented this evidence in other posts.) However,
>there is enough ambiguity that it is not impossible that they are
>meant as general instructions.

"Not", is as much a reply as this statement merits.

>Therfore we need to look at the rest of Scripture to see which of
>these interpretations is consistent with it. Just one example of Paul
>placing a woman in authority is enough to show that my interpretation
>is the consistent one.

See, that's just it. It plainly says women are not permitted to teach
or exercise authority over men. When faced with this plain statement,
you insist on an interpretation which is contrary to the plain
language, which you supposedly support, now, from this single
reference to Phoebe. The use of the word "diakonon", cannot
conclusively be used to prove that Phoebe was an appointed official.
The word can mean an appointed official, but it can also mean male or
female slaves. I have shown this by posting every single reference
where this exact word is used throughout the NT. I am prepared to
admit, from such observation, that the word "diakonon" means
"servant", and that it can refer to anything from a male or female
slave to an appointed official servant. Your view, however, depends
entirely upon the insistance that this word must mean that Phoebe was
an appointed official.

Even if Phoebe was an appointed official servant of the church of
Cenchrea (something which cannot be conclusively determined from the
brief reference in Romans 16), however, that still doesn't mean that
she was authorized to teach or hold authority over men. I don't see
anything in the description of the office of deacon (1 Tim. 3), which
says that they hold authority over other church members, or that they
are responsible for teaching people. In Acts 6, they helped
distribute financial assistance to the widows, and such, so the pastor
could devote himself to prayer and the teaching ministry of God's
Word. The context of Romans 16 says Phoebe was a helper of many as
she was of Paul also. Paul was the Christ ordained apostle, preacher,
and teacher of the Gentiles (1 Tim. 2:7ff.), sent to establish and
oversee the NT churches. In no way was Phoebe's ministry to Paul,
therefore, a ministry of spiritual oversight, authority, or
instruction of the apostle. And yet it is in the sense in which
Phoebe helped Paul that she helped many, and was a servant, according
to Romans 16.

To insist that Phoebe was an appointed official, when the evidence is
not conclusive that she was, or that there even is an office of deacon
for women, when 1 Tim. 3 could just as legitimately be referring to
wives of deacons, or that the office of deacon involves holding
authority over and teaching men in the church, when there is no
indication they did anything other than acts like distributing money
to widows in need, and to insist that this therefore means that we
must interpret the plain prohibition of women teaching or exercising
authority over men contrary to what the prohibition clearly says, only
seems to show the desparation of a bankrupt point of view.

>Even you admit that this is the case concerning
>Phoebe in Rom 16, although you try to explain it away as authority
>that is derived from Paul rather than true authority.

The word "helper", is used a number of times, in contexts where it
involves exercising rule over others. It is also used, in Titus, and
Romans, to denote showing mercy, or maintaining good works. It was in
the sense in which Phoebe was a "helper" of Paul, that she was also a
"helper" of many.

If you are not aware that Paul was the one who started the Gentile
churches in the first place, or that he was appointed by Christ as an
apostle, preacher, and teacher of the Gentiles (1 Tim. :7ff.), and
that he had the oversight of all the churches, that might explain why
you would think that her "help" meant teaching and holding authority
over men. But since Paul was all of the above, I think it would be
kind of rediculous to contend that Phoebe exercised authority over, or
instructed the apostle Paul. And since it was in the sense she helped
Paul that she was a "helper" of many, then she must have helped them
in the sense of showing them mercy, or comfort, or doing good works
for them. For Paul to therefore instruct people to help a woman show
mercy to others, hardly seems like the office of authority and
instruction over men you are insisting it must, to force an
interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:11ff., which contradicts the plain language
of that prohibiton.

>> Yet when
>> one goes along with this principle, and shows from the entire Bible
>> that men are overwhelmingly presented as God's normative agents of
>> authority in all ages, cultures, and institutions, it is said that
>> this proves nothing, it applies only to a patriarchal culture.

>If you had indeed proved that men were *God's* normative agents of
>authority, it would apply in all cultures.

God the Father is masculine. Christ is God in the flesh, and He is
the master of the universe, and is a man.

"God created Adam chief" (1 Tim. 2:13). The word chief, if you look
at every reference where it occurs in the NT, you will find, means
both first in time, and first in rank. This verse is all that really
needs to be quoted, since this truth is generally applied to men in
the NT church, in 1 Tim.

Every covenant God made, was with a man. There is the Noaic covenant,
the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidic covenant,
etc.

God made men priests, and the overseers of the entire Levitical,
spiritual ministry to the nation Israel.

God made only men, with the temporary, single exception of Deborah,
the civil leaders of national Israel.

1 Cor. 11:3 says that man is the head of woman as Christ is the head
of man, and God the Father is the head of Christ. The context of the
passage goes on to say that the reason for this is because God did not
make the man for the woman, but made the woman for the man ("it is not
good that the man should be alone, I will make him a helper suitable"
[Gen.]).

Ephesians 5 says the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the
head of the church. Christ does not cease to be head of the church if
the culture changes, and therefore, men do not cease to be the head of
women if the culture changes.

Colossians 3 confirms the Ephesians 5 statement.

1 Peter 3:1-6 says that wives are to submit to their husbands, just as
holy and godly women of old, such as Sarah, obeyed their husbands,
calling them "lord". This ancient truth is applied to men and women
of the NT church era.

God made only men apostles of the NTchurch.

God always, throughout the entire Bible, reckons families, a primary
institution in life, under the headship of men. 1 Timothy 3 says that
a pastor/teacher must first rule HIS own family well, because if HE
cannot, then He is not qualified to manage the church of God.

1 Tim. 3, when giving the qualifications for the office of
overseer/teacher, lists the masculine gender 9 times, and never the
femenine gender.

These truths applied in the culture of the Garden of Eden, the
post-fall civilization of the Gentile world, the post flood
civilization of Gentiles, the culture of national Israel, and are now
applied to the NT church, which was formed of both Jews and Gentiles,
from every kind of diverse "culture".

Many of these points could be illustrated with a hundreds if not
thousands of references, from throughout the entire Bible.

>You have not proved it. The
>Bible describes ages, cultures and institutions in which male
>authority was the norm. However, there are many norms described in
>the Bible that are not God's norm. Do you really think that slavery,
>monarchy and agricultural societies are God's norm? They are certainly
>shown as being normative in the Bible.

If, after reading the above references to the fact that God created
Adam "chief", the application of this principle to men in the NT
church, the cooresponding prohibiton of women from teaching or
exercising authority over men, and the proper conduct of one in the NT
church (1 Tim. 2:11ff.; cf. 3:15), as well as the numerous other
examples given above, you would still contend that making men the
authority over women is not "God's norm", then I'm not going to be
able to reason with you from the Scripture.

>Mere description of social structures in the Bible does not show that
>they are God's will for all time. Sometimes they simply reflect the
>culture in which God's recorded dealings with humanity took place.

First of all, it was shown that God applied the principle of creating
Adam "chief", to men's role of authority in the NT church (1 Tim.
2:11ff; cf. 1 Cor. 11:3ff.; Eph. 5; Col. 3; 1 Pet. 3:1-6).

Second, the word "culture", means "ways of life". The alternate
meaning refers to the arts, but I don't think that is what you are
referring to. I showed, at length, in a previous post, that in every
age, God's will is to save His people from the ways of life of the
unregenerate.

Third, I don't think you are considering what determines the "culture"
for God's people. You seem to be suggesting that people should adapt
God's will to their culture, rather than adapt their culture to God's
will.

When the pre-flood world of Gentile unbelievers were eating and
drinking, and giving in marriage, and making merry, the Bible says the
thoughts of their hearts were "only evil continually". This was their
way of life, or culture. But what was God's will for his people's way
of life during this time? He had Noah build an ark, something
everyone ridiculed for 120 years, something which was not what
everyone else was doing. He destroyed the people who chose their own
ways of life, and gave Noah a peculiar and odd way of life which
everyone found totally rediculous.

After the flood, God told men to fill the earth. Man chose his own
ways of life, and determined to build the tower of Babel, to keep
himself from being spread abroad over the face of the earth. Did God
therefore conform his will for the ways of life of man change, to
conform with the ways of life which people chose for themself? No.
God confused their speech, so they would keep his ways of life, by
spreading abroad over the face of the earth, and filling it.

When God promised Abraham a seed, through Sarah, who would be blessed.
When Sarah did not conceive, she followed the custom of the day. She
gave Abraham her slave Hagar to bear seed for Abraham. This was what
the custom of the day was. After Hagar conceived, Sarah herself
admitted this act was wrong. God, in the following chapter confirmed
it was wrong, because Sarah would bear the son who was the seed of
promise.

When Ishmael was born, he was the eldest son. The "custom", or ways
of life in that day, were for the eldest son to be the one who
inherited the blessing. Abraham insisted that God let Ishmael, and
not the promised seed through Sarah, inherit the blessing. This was
the custom of the day. Contrary to the ways of life, or custom of the
day, God said the younger son would be the one who would inherit the
blessing.

The same thing occurs when it comes time to pass the blessing of God
on to the sons of Isaac. Esau was the eldest, and, according to the
ways of the day, should have received the blessing. Isaac even tried
to bestow the blessing on him, but God turned the event around, and
chose Jacob, the youngest, to receive the blessing.

This pattern continued when Jacob/Israel went to Egypt. His son
Joseph brought Ephraim and Manasseh. Though Manasseh was the eldest,
Jacob blessed Ephraim with his right hand, and Manasseh with his left.
This "displeased him [Joseph]; and he grasped his father's hand to
remove it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head. Jacob said he knew
what he was doing, and again, that the elder son would serve the
younger. This whole thing was contrary to the "custom", or ways of
life of the people of that day.

The reason God through the Canaanites out of the land, was because of
their ways of life. Before Israel moved in, God repeatedly warned
them not to conform to the ways of the people whom God had thrown out
for their ways of life. When Israel conformed to the ways of life of
the surrounding nations, God sent judgment on them, and scattered them
away to Babylon and Assyria.

The New Testament church, which means "called out assembly", is called
out from the world, to live a different life. "...do not be conformed
to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind..."
(Romans 12:2). Ephesians 4 and 5, anc Colossians 3 emphatically call
on the church to put aside the ways of the Gentiles, and to put on the
ways of Christ:

"This I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you
walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk...in reference to your
former manner of life, lay aside the old self..." (Eph. 4:17, 22).

The whole of Ephesians 4:17 - 5:33 describe a contrast between the
ways of the Gentiles and the people of God. It calls on the people of
God to put away the ways of the Gentiles, and walk in accord to their
new position in Christ. Among the new ways of life in which the
church is to walk, is found the instruction that the wife should
submit to the husband, because the husband is the head of the wife
just as Christ is of the church.

When God did set aside the former ways of the Law, he plainly stated
such in teh NT epistles (Rom. 7 - 8:15; Galatians).

Many other references to the NT church confirm that they are saved out
from the ways of the world, and that they are to practice the ways of
Christ.

God's will for His people is what determines their ways of life (which
is the meaning of "culture"), and the "culture" is not what determines
God's will for His people. This seems to be the opposite of what you
are proposing, that we should conform the Scripture to the ways of
life we are now living in, rather than conform our ways of life to the
Scripture. God gives his will for the ways of life of the church, up
to the rapture of the church from earth (1 Thess. 4:13-18), and the
eternal state in the new heavens and the new earth (Rev. 22). It says
in Rev. 22, not to add to the Bible.

It is God's will for the NT church to conduct itself according to the
principles and ways set forth in 1 Timothy. 1 Timothy 3:15 says that
Paul has written this epistle so one might know how to conduct
themself in the church of the living God. Not just the church which
Timothy pastored, or the church of the "culture" of Timothy's day, but
the church of the living God, which is the church today as well.
These are said to be standards of "godliness" (3:16). And this is the
epistle which, beginning in chapter 2, gives God's roles for people in
the church. This passage says men in every place should pray for all
men, and those who are in authority. It likewise calls on women to
adorn themself with good works, and then to "receive instruction with
entire submissiveness." As such, they are not allowed to "teach or
exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." This is because
God mad Adam "chief". This is not an instruction about keeping
heretics from teaching men, but of keeping women from teaching men.
To try to make it such is to insert ideas and words into the plain
statemnents, which are not there, and which contradict both the
statements, and the context of the passage.

>On the contrary, we have Gal 3:28 showing God's will for the Church is
>that there is "neither male nor female ... in Christ Jesus." You have
>claimed that this only refers to their equality as children of God,
>but does not affect the authority of their roles in the Church. To
>test this interpretation we can compare it to the other divisions
>expressed in this verse. Do Jews and Greeks have differents roles in
>the Church? No. Do slaves and free have different roles in the Church?
>No,

This verse is not talking about rank in earthly life, but relationship
to God. All are one in Christ, as children of God. In that sense,
all saved are equal, but this is not talking about rank or role in
life, or the NT church. To contend otherwise is to force an
interpretation on this passage which contradicts the plain statements
in 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5; Col. 3; 1 Pet. 3; etc., which says wives
should submit to their husbands. I use this as an example, because
you have agreed, above, that I have shown that wives are supposed to
submit to their husbands. If this verse means what you are now
claiming it means, then you also have to deny your agreement that
women are supposed to submit to their husbands, because that wouldn't
be the kind of equality you are apparently claiming Gal. 3 describes.

Also, if the Galatians passage is doing away with all rank and roles,
then saved children, regardless of whether they were 3 years of age,
would no longer be under the authority of their parents, because they
would have equal authority. No, Galatians 3 speaks of equality of
position in Christ, as children of God, and not of equality of rank
and role in daily life.

>> You can't have it both ways.

>This is not a question of "having it both ways."

>The references to women teaching, having authority and leading worship
>are significant

There is no authorization for women teaching men, having authority
over men, or leading men, in the NT epistles. You have insisted such
from examples like Phoebe, but it has been shown again and again, that
1) the word "diakonon" does not have to mean an appointed official,
but can refer to any service, whether by slaves, or appointed
officials; 2) Even if Phoebe was an appointed "diakonon" of the church
of Cenchrea, there is nothing which says that deacons rule over or
instruct anyone (1 Tim. 3; cf. Acts 6). 3) Phoebe was a helper of
many in the sense she was of Paul, and this must be in the showing
mercy or maintaining good works sense, because Paul was appointed as
an apostle, preacher, and teacher of the Gentiles, and had oversight
over all the Gentile churches; 4) Paul telling people to help Phoebe
help others does not constitute a role or office of women exercising
authority over or instructing men in the NT church.

Yet despite all this, you insist that 1) Phoebe must have been an
appointed servant, and could not have been just a servant; 2) That
being an appointed servant must, therefore mean that Phoebe instructed
and held authority over men; 3) that being a helper of Paul means she
taught and held authority over him; and 4) that this means we must
interpret the passage which says women are not permitted to teach men
or hold authority over them as meaning women are permitted to teach
and hold authority over men. And this is your strongest "proof text"?
Your view is not supported by any single reference, let alone a
supposed pattern.

>While all the descriptions of men

>in authority could simply be due to cultural influences.

See above. Pick your era, pick your "culture". The Bible presents
male authority from cover to cover.

>In the OT, when women like Deborah or Huldah are shown in authority
>they are clearly shown as instruments of God's will. Similarly, the
>instances of women in authority in the NT are descriptions of women
>doing God's will or such women being commended and/or affectionately
>greeted by Paul. How can you say that God wants only men to be in
>authority in the face of this?

The question is how can you ignore the plain statements in the NT
epistles, and the pattern of the entire Bible in favor of this?

>> You can't have your handful of
>> scattered, sparse references "throughout the Bible", forming an
>> overriding authority which mandates an interpretation of the plain
>> prohibitions which is contrary to plain speech,

>As I said, your two "plain prohibitions" are not plain. There are good
>grounds to believe that they only apply to specific situations rather
>than to women in general.

You say this again and again, and I show, again and again, from the
context, that every reason is based on a God's design in creation, and
will for the NT church. 1 Tim. says it is instruction for how one
ought to conduct themself in the church of the living God. It more
specifically addresses the subject in question than any other passage
in the Bible. Yet, no matter what reasons the text gives, you simply
add "in that day", as if this constituted an overriding principle
which automatically proves your view, and disproves the plain
prohibitions.

>The references to women in authority
>throughout the Bible do not "override" these prohibitions. They
>show whether the general or specific interpretation is more
>consistent with the rest of the Bible.

Again, you are using "the rest of the Bible", as a supposed support
for your view, when the "rest of the Bible" clearly teaches that God's
normative agents of authority in every era, have been men. Against
this, you round up a handful of verses which in no way plainly state,
or conclusively support the ideas you are proposing. Nevertheless,
you insist upon an interpretation of these verses which supports only
your view, and act like this constitutes a solid basis for
interpreting 1 Tim. 2:11ff. in a way that is the opposite of what it
plainly says.

>Descriptions of men in authority do not establish this as God's norm.

And yet you would have us to believe that a comparitievely miniscule
number of references to women does establish a norm for women of the
NT church, despite the plain prohibition of such in the passage of the
Bible which most specifically addresses the issue of whether or not
women are allowed to teach or exercise authority over men in the NT
church "of the living God", not the church "of just Paul's day".

>> "Let a women quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
>> But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man,
>> but to remain quiet." (2:11-12 NAS)

> Just previous to this passage, Paul was writing about the heretical
>teachers who were causing problems in this church.

The primary emphasis is on fighting the good fight of the faith
(1:1-5; 11-18). Chapter 2 shows a proper role for men and women in
the NT church of the living God, in light of this "goal" (1:5; cf.
3:15).

>...the

>prohibition against teaching applies only to heretical women teachers.

The text does not say this. The prohibiton is not on "heretical
women", but "women". The previous instruction was for "men in every
place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension
(8), and "likewise, [for] women to adorn themselves with proper
clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or
pearls or costly garments; but rather by means of good works, as
befits women making a claim to godliness. Let a woman quietly receive
in struction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman

to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

Are we to understand that only "heretical" men are to pray, or that
only "heretical" women are to adorn themselves in a godly manner?
Then why suddenly insert that only "heretical" women are prohibited
from teaching or holding authority over men? Neither the language,
nor the context of chapter 2 supports the insertion of the word
"heretical" into 2:11 and 12, where it does not occur.

>> The context of this reference gives the reason for the prohibition of
>> women teaching or holding authority over men as because God made Adam
>> chief (13), because Adam was not deceived (13b), and because the woman
>> was deceived (14).

>It does not make sense to interpret these verses as showing that women
>in general are easily deceived and therefore forming the basis for a
>general prohibition. If they meant that women in general were easily
>deceived this would mean that women should *never* teach or have
>authority. This contradicts clear instructions to women to teach other
>women and to have authority over their children.

For one thing, women learning with entire submissiveness is contrasted
with them teaching or holding authority over men. If they are
teaching or exercising authority over men, according to this passage,
they are not learning quietly, or with entire submissiveness. The
primary reason given for this submission of women, with its resulting
prohibition on them teaching or exercising authority over men, is
because Adam was created chief. This shows a role of submission, for
women, which is based on God's design in creating man as chief (cf. 1
Cor. 11:3). Whether Eve had been deceived or not, God still created
Adam, with the purpose that men are "chief", and this means a role of
submission for women, which naturally includes a prohibition on them
teaching or holding authority over men.

[Anon]

jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
wrote:

>if we really were to take 1 Cor 14:34 as a
>plain statement that "women should keep silence in the churches," it
>would mean it permits women no joining in congregational prayers, no
>singing, no telling their children to sit still and pay attention.

In the garden of Eden, Satan first exaggerated God's singular
prohibition of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
to make it seem like He was being unnecessarily strict with Eve:

"Indeed, has God said, You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?"

(when He had only said they could not eat from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil).

After exaggerating the singular prohibition, to make God's seem strict
on Eve, Satan then denied the plain prohibition:

"You surely shall not die!"

Then, Satan made Eve discontent with her current, God ordained
position, tempting her to envy equality with God, just as he himself
had determined to be "like the most high" (Isaiah 14:12-15):

"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be
opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

This is refered to as the "pride and condemnation of the devil" (1
Tim. 3:6).

>If
>we were to really take 1 Tim 2:12 as a plain statement that permits
>"no woman to teach or have authority over a man"...

"Yeah, hath God said...?"

>it would mean it
>permits no women judges, politicians, professors, employers,
>supervisers, homeowners, etc.

"You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?"

God permitted Eve to eat of any tree but the one of the knowledge of
good and evil. God permits women to teach and exercise authority over
any humans but men. God is not being strict with women, by
prohibiting them from teaching or exercising authority over men.

1 Timothy is addressed to "the church of the living God (3:15), "so
that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of
God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of
the truth."

>The plain meaning of 1 Tim 2:15 is that
>women are saved by bearing children and being modest, rather than by
>faith in Christ.

The word "saved", does not have to refer to salvation just from the
penalty, power, or presence of sin (something which occurs through
faith in Christ alone), but can include salvation from other things,
which are usually mentioned in the context. For example, in
Philippians 1:19, Paul says he knows the Philippians prayers will
result in his salvation. The fact that Paul was already saved, the
context, and Paul's clear emphatic teaching elsewhere, that salvation
is by grace, through faith, apart from any human merit whatever
(Galatians; Romans; Eph. 2:8-10), however, indicates that Paul is
refering to deliverance from prison, and not to salvation from sin.

In the same way, the context of 1 Tim. 2:15 does not necessitate that
the salvation refered to is that of salvation from sin. Women are not
permitted to teach or hold authority over men, but are to learn with
entire submissiveness. One possible interpretation, then, of the
salvation of the woman, is that through bearing children, she has
someone to exercise authority over (children).

Or it could refer to the promise God made to Eve, that through her
seed, the redeemer would come (Gen. 3:15). The reference, then, to
them continuing in faith and love, etc., would be the outward evidence
of the inward faith. Those who exercise faith in this manner,
continue to show that the faith they have is saving faith, and that
they will be saved.

Notice what Christ said about setting aside the plain commands of God,
in favor of human tradition:

And He answered and said to them, And why do you yourselves transgress
the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said,
HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER, and, HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR
MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH. But you say, Whoever shall say to
his father or mother, Anything of mine you might have been helped by
has been given to God, he is not to honor his father or his mother.
And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your
tradition. You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you,
saying, THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR
AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES
THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.

Jesus here confronted the Scribes and Pharisees over the way they
worked their way around the plain commands of God's word, in favor of
their man-made tradition, or culture.

>I strongly suspect you do not follow the plain meaning of these
>verses. You have already admitted that you do not follow the plain
>meaning of Scripture when it says that women must be veiled.

The passage itself says that the women's hair "is given to them for a
covering". I said that this contextual clarification, and not any
contemporary "cultural consideration", was the basis for concluding
that it may be refering to wearing long hair as a veil, or covering.

>You do
>not follow plain meanings; you follow your interpretation.

I'm not the one denying the plain prohibitions of women teaching or
exercising authority over men, in favor of the contemporary traditions
of men.

>When I look at the context I understand these verses to refer to
>specific situations and derive principles from them that apply today.

So do I. The entire Bible was written in refrence to specific
situations, to specific groups of people, at specific times in
history. It's just that I do not dismiss passages which were written
to the NT church, "that you might know how one ought to conduct
himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living
God, the pillar and support of the truth", as applying "ONLY" to that
church, and not to today's churches, when there is no exigetical
reason to do so.

>Clearly, I have made no impression on you. For you, your
>interpretation is the plain meaning while mine does not even merit
>reply.

The statement I didn't not reply to is:

>>the immediate context can support interpreting the instruction
>>as applying to certain specific women, rather than to women in
>>general. (I have presented this evidence in other posts.) However,
>>there is enough ambiguity that it is not impossible that they are
>>meant as general instructions.

How many times do I have to show, from the specific contexts where the
prohibitions occur, that the reasons given are based on timeless
principles, rather than "just" contemporary issues, as you contend?
Again, here are the reasons the passages themselves give for the
prohibitions, based on the timeless principle of submission for godly
and holy women:

With regard to the passage in 1 Cor. 14:

"for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the
churches of the saints." (1 Cor. 14:33). Are you contending that God
is no longer a God of order, but that he has, since this instruction,
become a God of confusion? Are you saying that today's churches are
not part of "all the churches of the saints"? Are you saying this
instruction applied only to the Corinthians, when the passage says
"all the churches"?

"let them [women] subject themselves, just as the Law also says" (34).
Here, the principle of submission is shown to apply to the church,
just as the principle of submission applied to women of the OT era. 1
Peter 3 also applies the principle of submission, for godly and holy
women of the OT, to holy and godly women of the NT church.

"If anyone thinks he is...spiritual, let him recognize that the things
which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." (37). Here, the
instruction is shown to pertain to those who are "spiritual". Are you
contending that today's christians are not spiritual?

"But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized" (38).

"let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner" (40).
Again, the instruction about women is connected to proper order, and
the fact that God is orderly, and not a God of confusion. Are you
contending that God has changed, and is now, in this age, a God of
confusion?

With regard to the passage in 1 Tim. 2:11ff.:

"The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good
conscience and a sincere faith" (1 Tim. 1:5). Are you contending that
instructions aimed at the goal of promoting "love", "a good
conscience", and "a sincere faith" pertain only to certain christians?

"...I was appointed a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the

truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and

truth. Therefore I want the men in every place....(2:7-8)...Likewise I
want women to...(9). The authority for the "I want", and "I do not
permit", is traced to Christ's appointment of Paul as an apostle,
teacher, and preacher to the Gentiles. Are you contending this
instruction therefore only applies to the Corinthian Gentiles?

"Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man,

but to remain quiet (11-12). Are you contending the prohibition is
not based on a principle of submission?

"For God created Adam chief" (1 Tim. 2). The word "chief", can be
demonstrated, from an exhaustive reference to everywhere it occurs in
the NT, to mean both first in time, and rank of authority. The
passage here applies the way Adam was created chief, to the proper
roles of men and women in the NT church, showing why "women" are to
walk in a role of "entire submissiveness". Are you contending this
principle of man being created chief applies from the time of Adam up
to the NT church of Paul's day, but then ceased, without any
indication of such elsewhere in the NT, at some point in history?

"I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the
household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar

and support of the truth. And by common confession great is the

mystery of godliness..." (1 Tim. 3:15-16a). Are you contending that
today's church is no longer the household of God, church of the living
God, or pillar and support of the truth?

You said,

>it is not impossible that they are meant as general instructions.

I am still waiting for someone to show, from these passages where the
prohibitions occur, that the prohibitions are restricted to applying
"only" to that specific group of people, at that specific time. So
far, I have not seen one shred of support, from those passages where
the prohibitions occur, that there are any "merely" contemporary
reasons for the prohibition. I want to be exegetically solid in
interpreting this issue, and will consider any contextual, exegetical
support for the conclusion that the prohibitions apply "only" to the
specific group of people to whom the instruction was originally given,
and not to women today.

>Your post is almost entirely points you have made before. I will try
>to address only new or unanswered items.

And yet did you not just compell me to restate them, by calling on me
to again reply to your statement which I have already repeatedly
addressed?

>> reference to Phoebe. The use of the word "diakonon", cannot

>[]

>In earlier posts you said the word was "diakonos." Upon being informed
>that -os is a masculine ending and implies that Phoebe held the same
>position as male deacons, you have now changed it to "diakonon." Which
>does the Bible really say? You ought to know since you claim to have
>done an exhaustive word study.

The word, as it appears in the Greek text, is "diakonon". This is the
"accusative singular, masculine and femenine" of "diakonos". (The
Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised 1978 Edition).

As I said before. The word means "servant", and is applied,
generally, to everyone from slaves to a pastor of a NT church. The
context, therefore, is what determines the sense in which a person is
a "servant". As far as the office of deacon is concerned (I think you
are arguing that Phoebe was an appointed deacon in the same sense that
a man was, and that this therefore means she held authority over and
instructed men), where does any passage show the office of deacon to
be one of spiritual instruction or authority?

Acts 6, where the office of deacon was created, seems to contrast the
ministry of deacons with that of those who exercised spiritual
oversight and instruction:

"And the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said,
"It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to
serve tables. But select from among you, brethren, seven men of good
reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in
charge of this task. But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to
the ministry of the word."

1 Tim. 3 makes a distinction between the office of overseers, who
exercise authority over the church of God, and deacons.

The only reference I see, to authority or instruction, with reference
to this office, is that which the prospective deacon "husband"
exercises over "his" family. Even if you do understand "wives" to
refer to a separate office for women, where is there any mention that
this office involves exercising authority or instruction over the NT
church? The ministry of deacons is contrasted to that of instruction
and oversight of pastors, in Acts 6, where the office was created to
relieve pastors of the burdon of showing mercy to the poor.

The context of the Phoebe reference uses the word "helper", which
sometimes involves authority, and which sometimes means to show mercy,
or maintain good works.

The sense in which Phoebe was described as a helper of many is the
sense in which she was a helper of Paul, and since Paul was the
appointed apostle, preacher, and teacher of the Gentiles (1 Tim.
2:7ff.), who had spiritual oversight over all the churches, Phoebe did
not rule over, or instruct Paul in the faith.

Since it was in the sense Phoebe helped Paul that she also helped
"many", the context seems to support the conclusion it was in the
sense of showing mercy, or maintaining good works, and not in the
sense of ruling or instructing them in the faith.

Even if Phoebe was an appointed deacon, in the same sense men were,
that only supports the conclusion her ministry was one of showing
mercy to the poor and needy, the very purpose for which the office of
deacon was created in the first place, in contrast to the ministry of
the pastors who use deacons to give them more time to oversee and
teach the church.

>You seem to have forgotten admitting that Phoebe was in authority.
>Let me refresh your memory:

>I said,

>"When Paul tells the members of the church at Rome to `help her in
>whatever she may require of you' he is placing her in a position of
>authority over them. She has the authority make requirements of them.
>They are to do whatever she asks."

>You answered,

>"Actually, there is some truth to what you are saying here, and it is
>born out both by the meaning of the words, and the context. But they

>were to act on Paul's inspired authority, not Phoebe's..."

I admitted there was some truth to what you were saying, not that
Phoebe was in authority. Why do you think telling someone to help
("be near", "stand by", "present") someone where they need help,
necessarily means placing them under that person's authority?

In Matthew 26:53, this very same word for "help", as is used of the
Romans helping Phoebe, is used of the help which God the Father is
capeable of giving to Christ if Christ requested it: "Thinkest thou
that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently *give* me
more than twelve legions of angels?" Yet 1 Cor. 11 says God is the
head of Christ.

In 2 Tim. 4:17, Paul uses this very same word to show how the Lord
"stood with me, and strengthened me":
"At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it
not be counted against them. But the Lord *stood with* me, and
strengthened me..." Are we to conclude, then, that Paul held an
office of authority over the Lord? Someone standing by and helping
someone else, in this sense, can, but does not necessarily mean
placing the helper under the authority of the one helped, unless,
perhaps, you are desparate to make a case for women holding authoriy
over men.

>...I am quite aware of the role of Paul in the
>Church. Even so, I find nothing ridiculous in the thought that Phoebe
>might have taught Paul something. Perhaps she taught him when he was a
>new Christian.

Look, how do you think the word of God came to Corinth (where Cenchrea
is located), in the first place? There were no Christians in Corinth
until Paul and those he evangelized began evangelizing. Paul was
already an appointed apostle and teacher of the Gentiles before Phoebe
even became a christian (cf. Gal. 1 - 2; Acts 15; etc.).

>She may even have taught him in later years. Paul was
>not omniscient. It is completely possible that Phoebe knew something
>that he didn't. Being willing to learn from others is a sign of
>Christian maturity. If Paul was a mature Christian, he would be open
>to whatever insights Phoebe shared with him.

It's one thing to learn something from someone. I can watch an
animal, and learn something about the animal. It's another thing for
a person to rule over, or teach someone doctrine. Paul was the one
appointed as an apostle, teacher, and preacher to the Gentiles (1 Tim.
2:7ff.). Paul was the one whose evangelism resulted in the evangelism
of Phoebe (Acts 18). Paul was the one who had to be kept humble by a
thorn in the flesh, because of the excessive revelations which were
given to him, some of which he was not even permitted to share (2 Cor.
12:1-7). The idea that exercising authority over and teaching Paul
Bible doctrine is the sense in which Phoebe was said to be the helper
of Paul, defies these Scriptures, can be proven nothing more than a
hypothetical invention, and yet it is necessary to reach the kind of
conclusions you are promoting for women.

>Similarly, even though he had oversight over many churches, there are
>still circumstances in which he would be under the authority of
>others. Let's say that Paul was visiting the church at Cenchreae. He
>might go to a deacon in charge of food distribution to ask for food
>(putting himself under her authority), rather than ordering someone to
>feed him.

Again, your view apparently depends on hypothetical inventions, the
idea that the deacon would be a woman, the idea that distributing food
constitutes an office of authority and instruction over the NT church,
etc., rather than any clear passage of Scripture.

>You are using 1 Tim 2:11ff to show what the role for women is in the
>Bible as a whole. However, this is one of the two passages in
>dispute. We are looking at the Bible as a whole in order to interpret
>this passage. If you use it as evidence then you are committing
>circular reasoning.

I'm using 1 Tim. 2:11ff to show what the role for women is in the NT
church of the living God (cf. 1 Tim. 1: 5; 3:15). But even if you
want to look at the Bible as a whole, the entire Bible, as a whole,
endorses male leadership in every institution of life.

If I show from the whole Bible, that men are God's normative agents of
authority, as I have again and again, you agree that it is showing men
as God's agents of authority, but then dismiss any amount of evidence
as irrelevant, and as applying only to "patriarchal" people. At the
same time, you will select a miniscule number of references from the
same body of doctrine, to support your view of women teaching or
exercising authority over men ("throughout the Bible"), and claim it
does apply to women of the NT church.

If I show from the particular passages where women are supposed to be
in a role of submission (1 Cor. 11; 1 Cor. 14:34; Eph. 5; Col. 3; 1
Pet. 3:1-6; etc.), and that this includes a prohibition of teaching or
holding authority over men (1 Tim. 2:11ff.), you say either that it
only applies to those people, or that references "throughout the
Bible", support a conclusion which contradicts these plain
instructions.

>You did not answer my question. Do you really think that slavery,

>monarchy and agricultural societies are God's norm?

No, and the Bible doesn't apply these things to the NT church, as it
does the example of men being created chief, to the NT church (1 Tim.
2:13). For further example, Paul says, in 1 Cor. 7 that if someone has
the opportunity to become free from slavery, he should. Where is the
corresponding NT reference, in the NT epistles, that women should free
themselves from submission to men, and from the prohibition of
teaching or exercising authority over men?

>Every point you
>make for male authority applies to them too. Scripture describes God
>as a Master, a King and a Shepherd. These titles are applied to
>Christ. There are countless examples of all these institutions among
>God's people. Paul instructs that prayer and thanksgiving be made for
>kings in 1 Tim 2:2, and that slaves obey their masters in Eph 6:5. Is
>it the duty of Christians to restore these structures to our society?
>Either these are God's standard for all cultures or you need to show
>me how they differ from patriarchy.

1 Tim. 2:13 bases the reason why women are to be in submission, and
therefore not teach or exercise authority over men, on the fact that
God created Adam "chief". This directly applies God's intended role,
in the creation of man, to the proper roles of men and women in the NT
church of the living God (cf. 1:5; 3:15).

>[]

>> There is no authorization for women teaching men, having authority
>> over men, or leading men, in the NT epistles.

>The references have been listed for you several times.

You have no verse, as clearly stating women may teach or exercise
authority over men, in the NT church, as the prohibition of women
teaching or exercising authority over men in the NT church (1 Tim.
2:11ff; cf. 1:5; 3:15). You have no group of verses "throughout the
Bible", which constitutes an overriding principle of women's authority
and instruction of men, as the Bible overwhelmingly shows men as God's
appointed and recognized agents of authority in every institution of
life, including the NT church of the living God.

>It is pointless to mention them again.
>You go through each of them and explain them away.

>You don't talk of "plain meanings" when the most obvious meaning is
>that a woman is in a position of authority or teaching.

And I don't see a verse, in the NT epistles to the NT church, stating
that women may teach and exercise authority over men, in anything like
the plain language which says "I do not permit women to teach or
exercise authority over men", in a body of instruction which was
expressly for the purpose of showing the proper relationship of men
and women in the NT church of the living God (1 Tim. 1:5; 2:11ff.;
3:15).

>There are
>considerably more of these references than the two verses which could
>be taken to mean that these positions are prohibited.

There are zero references, in the NT, which state women may teach and
exercise authoriy over men, in the same kind of plain language which
says "I do not permit women to teach or exercise authority over men",
in a letter which was expressly written for the purpose of
establishing God's will for the NT church of the living God (1 Tim.
1:5; 2:7ff; 3:15). I think you are trying to infer that women may
teach or exercise authority over men, by using a few verses where it
is possible to attribute that meaning to the words of the passage,
even though a full understanding of those words, and the context of
the situations, does not require this interpretation, and contradicts
plain prohibitions in passages which are directly addressing the
subject of church leadership in the NT church of the living God.

>> Yet, no matter what reasons the text gives, you simply
>> add "in that day", as if this constituted an overriding principle
>> which automatically proves your view, and disproves the plain
>> prohibitions.

>I have not said this. Whenever you claim that I am saying this I point
>out that I have not said this. I do not see how you could be
>misunderstanding me and must conclude that you are deliberately
>misrepresenting my position.

Haven't you just dismissed the overwhelming mass of Biblical data
showing men as God's appointed agents of authority in every
institution of life as applying merely to a "patriarchal" society?

>1 Tim 1 deals with the problem of unsound doctrine in this
>congregation. In vv 6,7 "Certain persons ... have wandered away into
>vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law without
>understanding either what they are saying or the things about which
>they make assertions." This is the context for comments about men praying
>without quarreling and women not being permitted to teach. Certain
>women, like Eve, were being deceived and then leading others into
>transgressing. These are the women referred to.

This is neither what 1 Tim. 2:11ff. says, nor what it means.
1 Tim. does "deal with the problem of unsound doctrine in this
congregation", but the stated "goal" of the letter is: "But the goal
of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and
a sincere faith." (1:1-5). This is again reiterated in verses 12-19,
which states, "This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in
accordance with the propheies previously made concerning you, that by
them you may fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good
conscience..." And again, after giving the proper duties of men and
women (chapter 2), then of the qualifications for church officers (3),
Paul states, "I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct
himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living
God, the pillar and support of the truth." (3:15).

You are inserting the word "heretical", before women, where it does
not occur. The prohibition is on "women" of the NT church, just as
the previous instruction for women to adorn themselves in a godly
manner is for all the women of the church, not just heretical women,
and just as the previous instruction is for all men is to pray, and
not just for heretical men to pray.

> 1 Tim 2:12 could say that no woman should have authority over a man,
> or that no wife should have authority over her husband. The latter
> would be consistent with what Paul says elsewhere. Recall that
> Eve was Adam's wife, so even 2:13-15 could be taken as talking
> about the problems of a wife dominating her husband, not a general
> discussion about roles of women vs men.

Does this then mean that only husbands (2:1-8) are to pray for all
men, and that only wives (2:9-10) are to adorn themselves in a godly
manner, in the immediate previous references to "men" and "women"?

> I Tim 3:11 could be giving qualifications for wives of deacons or for
> female deacons. The latter would be consistent with the idea that
> Phoebe is a deacon.

>---clh]

Even if this were the case, where is the office of deacon shown to be
one of authority or instruction over the NT church? Doesn't Acts 6,
where the office was created, show they were to wait on tables
(distribute money to widows), so the apostles could devote themselves
to the spiritual oversight of the church through prayer and the
ministry of God's word? It seems to me that the institution of the
office of deacon actually contrasts it with that of exercising
authority over and instructing the NT church.

[DoctorKC]

In a message dated 17 Nov 97, Anon wrote a tremendously long post, which we
will condense:

>jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
>wrote:
>
>>if we really were to take 1 Cor 14:34 as a
>>plain statement that "women should keep silence in the churches," it
>>would mean it permits women no joining in congregational prayers, no
>>singing, no telling their children to sit still and pay attention.
>

Anon>In the garden of Eden, Satan first exaggerated God's singular

>prohibition of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
>to make it seem like He was being unnecessarily strict with Eve

Jayne's question was an exaggeration? The reason I brought this up to begin
with is that, based on the text, you haven't proven how or why women *can*
speak aloud in church. If "exercise authority" and "teach" are the absolutes
you claim them to be, then so is "silence". A strict adherence to this verse
*does* prohibit all verbal communication by women in the church. If, on the
other hand, women are permitted to pray aloud or worship/sing aloud, the
"absolute" has become an *interpretation*. Where is the dividing line here?
*That's* what I wanted to know.

And, for the third time, the question must be asked: what is the purpose of
women going to church? If they're "silent partners", what's to say they can't
accomplish the same thing at home? Or, is that the intent?

jayne>>it would mean it

>>permits no women judges, politicians, professors, employers,
>>supervisers, homeowners, etc.
>

anon>"You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?"

>
>God permitted Eve to eat of any tree but the one of the knowledge of
>good and evil. God permits women to teach and exercise authority over
>any humans but men. God is not being strict with women, by
>prohibiting them from teaching or exercising authority over men.

Just so I'm clear on this: you *are* opposed to women judges, professors,
politicians, etc. ?
What happens when your district elects or appoints a woman to public office?
Do you move? Should Christians?
Do you do business with companies that have women in management positions?
Should Christians work in such companies?

Does your church have a Secretary or Treasurer position? Can women work in
these? If so, then these must be "service" rather than "authority"
positions--but how is that determination made? If not, then they must be
"authority" positions. Again, what criteria do you use to determine these
things?

How about Usenet? Would you learn from a woman using this very medium? Or is
your only intent to teach them and avoid learning from them at all costs?

I could go on, but let's wrap up this way: Have we really thought through all
the practical ramifications of this interpretation? I don't think so, and
that's my purpose in posting. Again, if it seems that I am being contentious,
I apologize, for such is not my intention.

Any answer you could give me would be very helpful!
God bless
Ken

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

> jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca (Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail)
> wrote:
>
>>if we really were to take 1 Cor 14:34 as a
>>plain statement that "women should keep silence in the churches," it
>>would mean it permits women no joining in congregational prayers, no
>>singing, no telling their children to sit still and pay attention.
>
> In the garden of Eden, Satan first exaggerated God's singular
> prohibition of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
> to make it seem like He was being unnecessarily strict with Eve:

[several screens comparing me to Satan deleted]

I was not exaggerating. The "plain meaning" of "women should keep
silence in the churches" is just what I said. You keep claiming that I
am rejecting the plain meaning of Scripture because I do not accept
your interpretation. You imply that I am a tool of Satan and compare
me to the Pharisees who rejected the plain commands of God's word.

[]

> How many times do I have to show, from the specific contexts where the
> prohibitions occur, that the reasons given are based on timeless
> principles, rather than "just" contemporary issues, as you contend?

Actually, you don't have show me the same argument over and over again.
I understood it the first time. I just happen to disagree with it.
When I tell you my objections, you simply repeat it.

If it was going to convince me, it would have done so the first time.

[]

> church of the living God (cf. 1 Tim. 1: 5; 3:15). But even if you
> want to look at the Bible as a whole, the entire Bible, as a whole,
> endorses male leadership in every institution of life.

The Bible describes male leadership. Describing is not the same as
endorsing.

> If I show from the whole Bible, that men are God's normative agents of
> authority, as I have again and again, you agree that it is showing men
> as God's agents of authority,

I agreed to no such thing. How could you possibly have derived such
an idea from my posts?

[]

>>You did not answer my question. Do you really think that slavery,
>>monarchy and agricultural societies are God's norm?
>
> No, and the Bible doesn't apply these things to the NT church, as it
> does the example of men being created chief, to the NT church (1 Tim.
> 2:13). For further example, Paul says, in 1 Cor. 7 that if someone has
> the opportunity to become free from slavery, he should. Where is the
> corresponding NT reference, in the NT epistles, that women should free
> themselves from submission to men,

Also in 1 Cor 7, where he says that it is better not to marry.
Marriage is the situation where women are under authority of men.

> and from the prohibition of
> teaching or exercising authority over men?

There is no such prohibition in the OT. Whether it exists in the NT
is the question under dispute.

[clh commented]

>> 1 Tim 2:12 could say that no woman should have authority over a man,
>> or that no wife should have authority over her husband. The latter
>> would be consistent with what Paul says elsewhere. Recall that
>> Eve was Adam's wife, so even 2:13-15 could be taken as talking
>> about the problems of a wife dominating her husband, not a general
>> discussion about roles of women vs men.

The moderator's comments about the original Greek show that your two proof
verses are even more ambiguous in Greek than they are in English. You
have no justification for calling your interpretation the "plain
meaning".

I accept that the meaning seems plain to you. This is probably why you
think restating these same verses over and over is a good way to
respond to my points. But the meaning is not plain in any objective
sense. Many people hold the same interpretation that I do; it is not
some idiosyncracy of my own.

You, however, refuse to accept my sincerity. As far as you are
concerned, by following a different interpretation than you, I am
rejecting God's command. Profitable dialogue cannot take place unless
there is a certain amount of mutual respect. You have made it clear
that you hold me in contempt. It is a waste of my time to continue
this.

Jayne

[Peter Spacey]

In article <64okt4$1...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jay...@mmalt.guild.org.ca

(Jayne Kulikauskas - remove ".ca" to mail) wrote:

> an...@anon.com (Anon) writes:

Dear Jayne, it must awful hard to discuss these things with someone
who's 'anon'? And I have an outsider thought: *why* do *men* want to
get 'ordained', anyway?

The whole notion of being acceptable to and accepted by your fellow,
fallible mortals, strikes me as unproductive in the context of the life
of faith. Protestants who claim to believe in the priesthood of *all*
believers are the worst offenders. The use of "Revd.", "Bishop" et al,
may pander to one's ego and even invest their bearer with an aura of
dignity but in the beginning it wasn't so. "Bishop" crept into the AV
from the eccliastical preferences of its Anglican translators. And how
about "call no man father, for one is your father in heaven"?

Incidentally, is there any desire on the part of female clergy to be
known as "mother" (I'm aware of course, of the practice among nuns,
e.g., Mother Theresa). And what do you think of the feminist departure
from the historic attribution of 'fatherhood' to God?

Every blessing! Peter

---

[Remember that Anglicans aren't exactly Protestants. They result from
a change that was as much political as religious: The Anglican church
order wasn't redesigned along Protestant lines. However the NT does
describe specific church offices, such as elder, deacon, and apostle,
and there are discussions of the responsibilities of leadership in
various places. Acts 6 portrays the appointment of what most
Protestant churches would call deacons, as a formal act involving the
laying on of hands. 1 Tim 4:14 talks of Timothy being given his
office in a similar way. Thus by Protestant principles there is no
problem with having specific offices, and having a formal act of some
sort to appoint people to them. The use of titles such as "reverend"
does seem a reasonable question to ask. (It's not common to use
"father" in Protestant churches, and not all even use "reverend".)
I may respond in a posting under my own name, if I have time.
--clh]

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

sear...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Peter Spacey") writes:

[]

> The whole notion of being acceptable to and accepted by your fellow,
> fallible mortals, strikes me as unproductive in the context of the life
> of faith. Protestants who claim to believe in the priesthood of *all*
> believers are the worst offenders.

The Roman Catholic Church also teaches the priesthood of all
believers. It does not see ordination as being in conflict with this
doctrine. There are simply two kinds of priesthood.

> The use of "Revd.", "Bishop" et al,
> may pander to one's ego and even invest their bearer with an aura of
> dignity but in the beginning it wasn't so. "Bishop" crept into the AV
> from the eccliastical preferences of its Anglican translators. And how
> about "call no man father, for one is your father in heaven"?

What most strikes me about NT writing about authority is that
leadership and service are used interchangeably. Once we lose sight
of this, we start asking all the wrong questions.

> Incidentally, is there any desire on the part of female clergy to be
> known as "mother" (I'm aware of course, of the practice among nuns,
> e.g., Mother Theresa).

I've heard of this among female Anglican priests.

> And what do you think of the feminist departure
> from the historic attribution of 'fatherhood' to God?

I think it's very Scriptural.

Jayne

[Hilary Gay]

>
> > And what do you think of the feminist departure
> > from the historic attribution of 'fatherhood' to God?
>
> I think it's very Scriptural.
>
> Jayne

Just out of interest, is there anywhere in the Bible that says women may
be priests/equivalent? The only relevant quote I can find is the
unpopular one about a woman not having authority over a man. Especially
in church.

Hilary

[Kim Tame]

Hilary Gay wrote:
>
> >
> > > And what do you think of the feminist departure
> > > from the historic attribution of 'fatherhood' to God?
> >
> > I think it's very Scriptural.

> Just out of interest, is there anywhere in the Bible that says women may

> be priests/equivalent? The only relevant quote I can find is the
> unpopular one about a woman not having authority over a man. Especially
> in church.

How about the priesthood of all believers? I Peter 2:9

Or Joel 2:28-32, as quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17ff - The promise is
that in the last days, God will pour out his spirit on all flesh, sons
and daughters, man servants and maid servants.

The ministry of women is a blessing promised for the last days.

Kim

[Jayne Kulikauskas - remove .ca to mail]

Hilary Gay <li...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:

>>
>> > And what do you think of the feminist departure
>> > from the historic attribution of 'fatherhood' to God?
>>
>> I think it's very Scriptural.
>>

>> Jayne

>
> Just out of interest, is there anywhere in the Bible that says women may
> be priests/equivalent? The only relevant quote I can find is the
> unpopular one about a woman not having authority over a man. Especially
> in church.

1 Peter 2: 5,9 is about the priesthood of all believers. If all of
God's people are priests and Christian women are part of God's people
(Gal 3:28), then Christian women are priests.

Of course, this opens up the question of how the priesthood of all
believers is related to ordination. Various Christian traditions deal
with this differently.

Jayne

[BeeEs3]

>From: Kim Tame <kim....@virgin.net>

>How about the priesthood of all believers? I Peter 2:9
>
>Or Joel 2:28-32, as quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17ff - The promise is
>that in the last days, God will pour out his spirit on all flesh, sons
>and daughters, man servants and maid servants.
>
>The ministry of women is a blessing promised for the last days.
>
>Kim

Dear Kim
I want you to know that I can feel what you are feeling inside you, whether you
believe me or not. I can also see how you are seeking to justify your strong
desire to preach the word of God, by trying to find any loop-holes in the word
of God that will sanction your wishes.
True we are all a Priesthood, but that is reserved for our future, when " we
shall be kings and priests unto our God, and we shall reign with Him", Rev.
5:9,10.
There is nothing wrong with glorying in the prophecy of Joel. It's because you
have the Holy Spirit, and know God's word, that you are filled with a zeal to
want to get and preach. But is that really as necessay as you think??? There is
a hymm entitled " Right in the corner, where you are" which brings home the
idea that we all have a ministry right where we are. We don't have to go to
some foreign land, or step up to a pulpit. Our ministry is right where we are.
There are people all around you, and some that God places in your face daily,
that need you desparately. There are people in jail that need you. There are
people in hospitals, and nursing homes, that really need you, and there aren't
very many who will go for Jesus.
If you haven't already, you can start a bible study in your home, and let God
give you the increase. There is such a great need for the youth of today, too.
Wouldn't you want to do what God wants of you, rather than what you want of
God?
Give it some thought. I'm praying for you, too.
AGAPE

His Servant
Ben
" And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come.
And let him that is athirst Come. And Whosoever will, let him take of the water
of life, freely ".

[Kim Tame]

Dear Ben,

You are a truly Christian man. You love the Lord and the Bible, and you
want to share them. I appreciate the way you tell people off with great
restraint when they resort to rude and abusive language in the
newsgroups. This is a concern to me, also. There is such hatred
expressed, it made me wonder if the newsgroups can really claim to be
Christians.

And you want to help me. I appreciate that, when there is so much that
is negative.

A little of my story:

My family was not Christian, but as children we were sent to an Elim
Pentecostal Sunday school. That was my first exposure to Christian
teaching, and it did me a lot of good, although I did not commit my life
to Christ until I was 22. By that time, I had been married for just
over a year. I went to my nearest evangelical church, where again, they
did me a lot of good; I was shown the love of Christ by some wonderful
Christian people.

Being in a traditional evangelical church, women did not preach or hold
office. I taught in Sunday School for a while. I began to feel I
should be doing something else. For about three years, I felt like a
racehorse under starter s orders, just waiting for the Lord to show me
what I should be doing. That sounds like it should have been
frustrating, but it was exciting, not knowing the way the Lord would
lead me, and waiting for the opportunity I knew was coming.

We moved to another area (it s a long story, but I knew it was the will
of God), and I went to the nearest church to home, which was Methodist.
It was a different style of worship and theology, but I was made very
welcome, and again, was shown the love of Christ by some wonderful
Christian people.

And women were preachers! You can t imagine how I felt to see women in
the pulpit, their gifts and calling appreciated by men and women alike.
Could that be for me?

I again taught in Sunday School as I considered what God wanted me to
do. I decided I could see me preaching one day, but I was not ready
yet. In the meantime, I was at home with a young baby, and I studied
New Testament Greek.

That feeling of I can see me preaching one day grew stronger, until it
became I am definitely going to do that one day.

One day arrived. The time came when I believed God was saying, now ,
and I couldn t wait any longer. I went to see my minister, and he was
delighted. My name was put forward for training, and I began the
Methodist Local Preachers training course, which is called Faith and
Worship . This is an intensive course, with four exams, which
encourages exploration of faith, church history, moral issues, Old and
New Testament history and theology, all designed to help the candidate
explore and test their call.

All through this course, I was stretched, challenged and educated.
Candidates can take up to four years, but I felt strongly that I had to
finish in two years - I still don t know why. My tutor complained he
felt exhausted! But I found the course exciting and exhilerating as
well as demanding and challenging.

At the same time as the academic course, the candidate is also thrown
into the deep end and put in a pulpit from the start. This helps to
test the call, because people can be mistaken, or realise that their
call is to do something different.

Here I learned something important. I was terrified about standing in
the pulpit. I don t know about your church, but some Methodist churches
have very large and grand pulpits, centrally placed at the front of the
church to emphasise the importance of the preaching of the word.

But once up there, I have one overwhelming feeling - I am right to be
here. My call is to be in the pulpit. I am doing the will of God for
me. This has been confirmed by the reaction of others to my
preaching. My call is also confirmed by the fact that I am now
authorised to preach in any church within world-wide Methodism, or other
churches by invitation.

My call from God has been recognised by my church family - the Methodist
church has had female local preachers almost from the beginning. John
Wesley was uncertain at first, but then he was convinced by hearing some
very able women preach - he could also see results, in souls being
saved. We have also had female ordained ministers for about 25 years;
they are a blessing to the churches they minister to, and a compliment
to the ministry of men, not competition.

The problem with the role of women text in the New Testament is that
they reflect the prevailing cultural role of women of those times.

You are more fundamentalist than me, Ben. I distinguish between those
scriptures which talk about doctrine, and those which talk about
practice. The practice of Christianity may legitimately vary according
to time and culture - otherwise we would all live like the Amish. Men
and women are not segregated anymore, we don t need separate preachers
for men and women.

You advise me to find other places to share God s word, and you are
right that young people, old people and sick people need visitors who
bring Good News. However, if you believe that women should not teach
men, then surely that includes at youth clubs, hospitals and old
people s homes? Jesus said that where two or three are gathered
together, he is present. That means that any gathering where people are
learning spiritual things is a church meeting. Sunday School is
church, youth club is church, etc. That means any males in those
settings can only be taught by men.

Paul s advice, which I would never ignore, was directed towards the
conditions and expectations of his time - he is talking about practice,
not doctrine.

Men are no longer offended if a qualified woman is teaching them. They
may well have had female teachers in school, female supervisors at work,
etc. Britain has had female prime minister (although she had to make do
without my support!). Our cultural conditions are very different from
New Testament times. I feel that Paul s primary concern was that
whatever was done in church, it should be done decently and in order,
and without offending anyone s idea of what was right and proper.

a. I don t offend anyone by being a female in a pulpit.
b. My call has been tested and confirmed.
c. I have the authorisation of my church to preach.
d. I preach in submission to the authority of my church and the
individual congregations I go to, as all preachers, men and women,
should.

(Sorry this posting has ended up being so long)

Kim