@LuvinGuy,

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

I am puzzled by anyone who reads this verse and concludes that Paul was refering to all women. The later part of the verse clearly indicates that Paul was talking to married women. The context of that scripture indicates that Paul was concerned about order in the church. Like TV01 stated earlier, Paul reiterated that the order in the home is not meant to be broken just because we are in church!

When an issue regarding a family is raised, the husband should be the one that speaks on the behalf of the family and not vice versa. This is why Paul said the wife should go home and discuss with her husband so they could have a common front. However, the husband must always be the spokes person for the home.

That scripture cannot be applied to single women by any stretch of the imagination.

so single women can speak/lead churches, after they get married, their rights become subsumed under the husband's right?

Hi TayoD,

I'm wondering if you actually saw that the context is broader than you offered.

TayoD:

That scripture cannot be applied to single women by any stretch of the imagination.

Does it then mean that single women can speak in the church?



Lol, debosky. . . you anticipated me!

@TV01,

My point was that the verse quoted does not serve to strip Christians of gender in any and all situations. That verse is oft quoted to justify a "unisex" approach in church roles, but it's context does not suggest it should be applied to this. It talks more to racial, social, cultural and gender equality, which I for one am not disputing. That's not to deny that God has assigned outlined gender specific roles, responsibilities and sphere's of influence/operation.

Within the context of the church as a body, gender is not an isssue. However, the home is still regarded as a unit within the church (heirs together of the grace of life). Since that unit cannot be broken even though both sexes are equal member of the body of Christ, the pre-eminence is still given to the male partner to speak on the behalf of that unit. This pre-eminence exists ONLY within the context of marriage. Any attempt to extend it beyond this unit, is an attempt to propagate sexual inequality.

TayoD dude, we are no longer in Eden  ! I am not disputing this point, but I think you need to take your esoteric theology and distil it into real-life, day-to-day practical Christian living. The scriptural outline is clear from I Cor, Tim & Titus (and a few ancilliary others). The scriptures are pivotal and unambiguous to our understanding of this issue.

I don't understand what you mean by esoteric knowledge. I learnt long ago to not just read the Bible without trying to understand God's thoughts behind it. True we are not in Eden, but God's plan within the garden hasn't changed. What was He thinking about in Eden? Knowing what God's mind is helps us to understand pasages like Women not wearing men's clothes, not muzzling the ox that threshes the corn or not putting on clothes with a mixture of different materials. People who fail to understand God's mind endeavour to literaly carry out these instructions and end up making a ship-wreck of faith.

Men are to lead women, women submit to their husbands, women keep silent in church, do not take authority over or teach men in church, church offices are exclusive to males (mature, upright). Quite a few people try to spin them, but no matter how one reads and juxtaposes these verses, honesty demands you reach the same conclusion.

If men are to lead women, how come Deborah judged Isreal? Or was she a male? As you stated, a wife should submit to her husband and not every man out there. The woman told to keep silent in the church is the married one. Like I said in my reply to LuvinGuy, this is to maintain the order of the home within the church. Where are we told that church offices are exclusive to males? Is this the same church that confesses that their is neither male nor female in Christ? My conclusion remains that the gifts and callings of God are not gender based!

@debosky,

I just saw your post while replying TV01.

so single women can speak/lead churches, after they get married, their rights become subsumed under the husband's right?

In so far as an issue that pertains to her family needs to be addressed in church, her husband will have to do the speaking. When the issue addresses the entire congregation, the woman can speak because she is a member of that body in particular. I hope you get my gist!

TV,you argue a whole lot.
You've stated that you will not attend a Church by a woman pastor,we got it already.
all this argument,are you a lawyer?

TayoD,I agree with you totally.
Women are not banned from having authority,there were female judges in the BIble and they judged a nation of men and women.

@TV01,

So I agree with your second sentence, but that is neither here nor there as we are discussing if women can occupy said ministerial offices, and to my understanding (no wisecracks here  ), that's a NO! Will a mature Christian man submit to someone else's wife? Then it's not to far a stretch to ask him to submit to his own wife is it? It's convoluted at best. So I also agree with your 3rd sentence, but not your inherent implication that women can hold office. "if a man desires the office". It's not for women to covet such.

Are you telling us that you submit to the authority in your church solely because of their sex organ? Are you not guilty then of considering a man's person? I submit to the office that those people at my church occupy and not to their personalities or gender! So tell me, do you have any female boss at work? And will that man who finds it difficult to submit to a female authority in church do the same when he is building bricks for Pharaoh in the secular setting? And by the way, the Bible uses the word 'man' in a generic sense, and your reference to "if a man desires" is one of them.

Stand corrected, I don't. But why do people try and read various verses into church structure, except the very scriptures that talk directly about it?

We are gradually getting to those scriptures. However, no scripture can be interpreted in isolation of the others. Sriptures don't contradict scriptures.

Right on marriage (home), wrong on church, and doubly wrong when you suggest there are no scriptural specifics around gender roles in a church setting.

I still maintain my stand. The only time gender specific roles are mentioned is when it relates to marriage. That unit cannot be broken by any means.

No, it was the unregenerated sin nature, lack of biblical understanding and sheer ignorance that made so called Christians attempt to justify slavery (and war) via scripture.

i expected you to take this stand though I disagree with the issue of war. I believe war can be justified as far as the territorial integrit of a nation is concerned. Isreal's wars in the O.T. are mostly about their territorial integrity. Paul mentioned that the boundaries of each nation is set by God and if God resorted to war to mainting this integrity in the O.T., what keeps Him from doing the same in the N.T. I guess this whould be left for some other discussion.

TayoD, you no dey fear  . Surely you expect this particularly weak return to get smashed back with all the ferocity and contempt it deserves (even you under-arm serving paddy - Bro' Analytical - wouldn't attempt this  !).
Junia was "of note" amongst the apostles, not one of them. Junia is/was not and nowhere listed as an apostle (however you choose to categorise the apostles). And Junia' gender is at best debatable. Brother please! Important ko, impotent ni, abeg.

While I agree that Junia's gender is debatable, the Greek word is definitely feminine and I stand to be persuaded that she isn't female. As for the scripture you are reading differently, pwerhaps it will be good to pick up many translations and read what they say:

The Message: Hello to my cousins Andronicus and Junias. We once shared a jail cell. They were believers in Christ before I was. Both of them are outstanding leaders

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

NASB: Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

NKJV: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Young's Literal Translation: salute Andronicus and Junias, my kindred, and my fellow-captives, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.

I'll post a pic of my babe, then all gender/role confusion will leave you immediately  !

Na wa o. So you are of the company of those who lead a sister about?! Paul will be so dissapoitned with you. While you took his advice to have ministers of the Gospel work for their meal despite that the Lord has commanded that those who preach the Gospel should live by it, you have completely neglected his wish that "you abide even as he did".

Tayod I agree with you totally. Most of those passages that persons use to render support why women should not take up leadership roles, or having to preach in congregations, are taken out of context.

"I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam" (Micah 6:4).


"Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron’s sister,, "(Exodus 15:20-21). The office of prophecy is no ordinary gift, and here we see a woman playing her role.

When Paul wrote a recommendation for Phoebe he referred to her as a "deacon" and not a deaconess. The greek word for deacon really connotes that of a preacher. In fact Paul used the same word as it related to His ministry. Paul refers to himself as the deacon of the New Covenant.

Note too that the word that is used for Phoebe is the greek equivalent for prostatic, or president or patron, and no doubt this woman was in charge of a christian community. Why else would Paul acknowledge her as such if she weren't playing the role?

I believe we have to make a disctinction between whether in Paul's time gender equality as an issue was societal, or Pauline. I for one don't believe Paul was the problem. I believe the problem stemmed from a societal one, which spilled over in the congregation.

The few instances when Paul had to lay down some principles as to how both men and women should conduct themselves within the congregation have been grossly taken out of context.

Abeg, make una take style talk true for once!

The verses being used to argue out this case of women LEADING a church do not lend support to such ideas.

Bobbyaf:

"Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron’s sister,, "(Exodus 15:20-21). The office of prophecy is no ordinary gift, and here we see a woman playing her role.

Exodus 15:20-21 does not teach that Miriam LED the congregation of Israel as a leader of the congregation (which includes the men). This is what the text says:

    'And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the
    women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam answered them,
    Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he
    thrown into the sea.'

The texts do not even teach that she was "playing her role" here as a prophetess in the Church.

Bobbyaf:

When Paul wrote a recommendation for Phoebe he referred to her as a "deacon" and not a deaconess. The greek word for deacon really connotes that of a preacher. In fact Paul used the same word as it related to His ministry. Paul refers to himself as the deacon of the New Covenant.

In other words, when Paul wrote to commend Phoebe, was he thinking of her in the sense of the qualification he recommended for deacons in I Tim. 3:12 -- "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well"??

Even in Romans 16:1, when Paul made the commendation of Phoebe, he did not mean to regard her as a preacher. The second verse indicates what exactly he had in mind: "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also" (Rom. 16:1-2) We can all agree on one thing: "of myself also" would not mean that Paul saw Phoebe as a "preacher" to Paul also!

When people take their ideas of Greek words and tear them out of context in order to pursue their preconceived notions, that is the kind of reasoning that would emerge to push conceptions that are not taught in God's Word.

Bobbyaf:

Note too that the word that is used for Phoebe is the greek equivalent for prostatic, or president or patron, and no doubt this woman was in charge of a christian community. Why else would Paul acknowledge her as such if she weren't playing the role?

The context in Romans 16:1-2 is clear enough - she "succoured" many; and that does not mean that she "preached" unto many.

Bobbyaf:

I believe we have to make a disctinction between whether in Paul's time gender equality as an issue was societal, or Pauline. I for one don't believe Paul was the problem. I believe the problem stemmed from a societal one, which spilled over in the congregation.

Elsewhere, Paul consistently made it clear that the distinction was not based on societal equations, but rather based on what the law says: "Let your women keep silence in the church[b]es[/b]: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" (I Cor. 14:34).

Bobbyaf:

The few instances when Paul had to lay down some principles as to how both men and women should conduct themselves within the congregation have been grossly taken out of context.

That is because those pushing a contrary agenda to what is recommended in God's Word have been looking the other way and basing their ideas on what society offers rather than on what the Word teaches.

Hi TayoD,

I trust you are enjoying the action at Wimbledon!?

Within the context of the church as a body, gender is not an isssue. However, the home is still regarded as a unit within the church (heirs together of the grace of life). Since that unit cannot be broken even though both sexes are equal member of the body of Christ, the pre-eminence is still given to the male partner to speak on the behalf of that unit. This pre-eminence exists ONLY within the context of marriage. Any attempt to extend it beyond this unit, is an attempt to propagate sexual inequality.

Please read what you wrote real carefully, especially the last 2 sentences. Are you suggesting that God instituted the family with "sexual inequality"? Or to put it another way, sexual inequality is allowed in the family?

Plus it cannot be limited to the context of marriage, as single unmarried (but marriageble)women are still under their fathers/family charge.

I see no dissonance in the flow from home to church. Not one set of rules in one, and a different set in another. It flows end-to-end. The family is the basic unit. Hence Gods testimony of Abraham, hence Joshua's cry. All bible strictures (OT & NT) regards societal and customary norms are based around the family.

A family is a fully functioning church in it's own right. A church is just a supersized (or collection of families). Another thing people often miss and misinterprete (IMHO), is the relative importance thay attach to this whole "church" thing. Church does not drive family, rather it's the other way round. Plus church, even if daily, constitutes no more than 1 of 7 days. In truth, even with 2 services and a programme (which is above average for most, and excessive in my opinion), we are talking about 12 hrs a week.

The bible clearly outlines the structure, order, setting and purpose of the gathering of the saints. These verses are relatively few and simply understood. The perverted structure of many of todays churches (a subtle form of "guruism" and organisational control), the warped understanding and scriptural mis-application of many, has served to ascribe "church" a relative importance that I personally don't believe is mandated by scripture. It's the family first, always.

Also, let me make myself clear. Distinction in roles & responsibilities based on gender is not synonymous with sexual inequality. The sexes are complementary, an obvious adduction if one believe the male female union constitutes a whole. Men cannot naturrally gestate, is that "sexual or gender inequality?

I repeat to argue for androgyny, is to argue for same-sex relationships and an elimination of any difference based on gender. That is exactly the way society is going today. Strange how noone argues for the one mixed draw of 5 set matches at the major tennis tournaments (keeping it topical here  !). Wierd how they would push women into (not that I'm championing war) into front-line combat. Contrary that women are still the preferred cares in custody battles (All Things Being Equal). Feminism, Homosexual and various other cdontra-Christian lobbies are all united under the tag PC.

Where are we told that church offices are exclusive to males? Is this the same church that confesses that their is neither male nor female in Christ? My conclusion remains that the gifts and callings of God are not gender based!

~ Tiimothy & Titus.
~ Neither male or female as you apply it means gender neutral, unisex Christianity which is contrary to the bible in it's entirety. Cover to cover.
~ The gifts and callings of God are role/task based. Biblical instances outside this where clearly    not God's will. Please revist the story of the oft-quoted Deborah. She herself made that clear.

On second thoughts, I won't be posting "SpareRibs" pictures. I have no wish to compromise the focus of this discussion. Anyway, she agrees entirely with me  !

Soon come.

God bless
TV

Hi TV01,

TV01:

A family is a fully functioning church in it's own right. A church is just a supersized (or collection of families).

Em. . . where does the Bible teach that a family is "a fully functioning church in it's own right"? What "family" are you inferring here?

church offices are exclusive to males (mature, upright).

Maybe I really don't get you here; but I don't think the Bible supports that idea. Church "offices" are not exclusive to males. Rather, the case was made for just one thing: that women are not to teach (I Tim. 2:12). I'm sure that when a good outline of what roles are presented in Scripture concerning church life, we shall come to the understanding that women play very important roles in church life that NO MALE can replace them in such divine roles.

as 2pac said, "ain't no man alive that can take my mama's place!"

as far as i am concerned, growing up with just a single parent; mum, you try telling her she was not to teach or preach in her house, LOL

TayoD:

Are you telling us that you submit to the authority in your church solely because of their sex organ?

No, gender. But before that, it would be maturity and or role.

TayoD:

Are you not guilty then of considering a man's person?

No again. Their personal achievements, riches, appearance or organ size are not taken into consideration!

TayoD:

I submit to the office that those people at my church occupy and not to their personalities or gender! So tell me, do you have any female boss at work? And will that man who finds it difficult to submit to a female authority in church do the same when he is building bricks for Pharaoh in the secular setting?

As a mature Christian male, I don't submit to Christian females, and I don't expect any mature Christian males to submit to my wife. Niether do I expect my wife to submit to anyone just because they are male or even a church office holder (I reserve the right of veto). How do we deal with a situation where the wife is mature and the husband immaturite or even carnal? At home, who has authority? In church, can she be his "Pastor" or an elder over him?

Secular setting and mores are not subject to Christian strictures for family and fellowship. Indeed, my wife could be my boss at work. My uplines to 3 levels are all female, no problem. It's based soleely on rank, competency and achievement, not gender or sex.

TayoD:

And by the way, the Bible uses the word 'man' in a generic sense, and your reference to "if a man desires" is one of them.

In some instances yes, but not in this one. Reading on, said man must be the "husband of one wife". Presumably the word rendered "husband" can also mean wife in some contexts? How about "rules his family well"? That implies that women can rule families.

Glaring gaps and huge holes in your game mean a ranking in the low 100's and no real hope of a major tournament win. You could of course join the womens circuit, after all, we are all one in Christ right  ! Where's Bro' Analytical? Abi you still dey qualify for majors? Here, have a wild card !

TayoD:

We are gradually getting to those scriptures. However, no scripture can be interpreted in isolation of the others. Sriptures don't contradict scriptures.

Agreed!

TayoD:

I still maintain my stand. The only time gender specific roles are mentioned is when it relates to marriage. That unit cannot be broken by any means.

Only if you choose to ignore the specific roles as outlined in Timothy & Titus. Especially when read in conjunction with other relevent scriptures about church and family.

TayoD:

While I agree that Junia's gender is debatable, the Greek word is definitely feminine and I stand to be persuaded that she isn't female. As for the scripture you are reading differently, pwerhaps it will be good to pick up many translations and read what they say:

The Message: Hello to my cousins Andronicus and Junias. We once shared a jail cell. They were believers in Christ before I was. Both of them are outstanding leaders

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

NASB: Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

NKJV: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Young's Literal Translation: salute Andronicus and Junias, my kindred, and my fellow-captives, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.

I am sure someone has noted the distinction between translations and versions already. And the fact that the feminine has to be adduced and cannot with any certainty be done so in this case.

Paul was the last Apostle. Others may have carried out "Apostolic" (Formative) work in churches, but they did not carry true "Apostolic Authority". It's a stretch to make Junia female, but it's dishonest to make him an Apostle.

TayoD:

Na wa o. So you are of the company of those who lead a sister about?! Paul will be so dissapoitned with you. While you took his advice to have ministers of the Gospel work for their meal despite that the Lord has commanded that those who preach the Gospel should live by it, you have completely neglected his wish that "you abide even as he did".  

Yes 0! But as you know, it's allowed. I'm with Apostle Peter on this one  !
I serve God in Christ Jesus, but I'm sure Apostle Paul understands. Had he seen her, he may even have changed his mind sef' - Abeg, no Christian Fatwah's 0! - having said that, he had the requisite gift!

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

Paul was the last Apostle. Others may have carried out "Apostolic" (Formative) work in churches, but they did not carry true "Apostolic Authority".

In what sense do you mean that Paul was "the last apostle"?

And if there were others after Paul as 'apostles', would they again have been carrying out apostolic work without true apostolic authority?

TV01:

Niether do I expect my wife to submit to anyone just because they are male or even a church office holder (I reserve the right of veto).

Is this not suggesting a disregard for what Scripture teaches; as well as a contradiction of the gist of your argument all along? I mean, if someone holds an office in the church (whatever "office" you may delineate), would it be a healthy assumption to make that due to your reserving a 'right of veto', your wife is not expected to submit to such as hold that office ('even a church office holder')??

stimulus:

Em. . . where does the Bible teach that a family is "a fully functioning church in it's own right"? What "family" are you inferring here?

I mean just that, that, a household can be considered a church. But I see your point, not always with the fullness of a larger congregation.

stimulus:

Maybe I really don't get you here; but I don't think the Bible supports that idea. Church "offices" are not exclusive to males. Rather, the case was made for just one thing: that women are not to teach (I Tim. 2:12). I'm sure that when a good outline of what roles are presented in Scripture concerning church life, we shall come to the understanding that women play very important roles in church life that NO MALE can replace them in such divine roles.

I believe that there are really only 2 church offices (carrying congregational authority), Elder and Deacon. Both restricted to mature men. There are however roles for women. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was writing with that distinction in mind, shold've said.

God bless
TV

stimulus:

In what sense do you mean that Paul was "the last apostle"?

He was the last Apostle. But let's not digress, if you would like to discuss, please start a thread.

stimulus:

And if there were others after Paul as 'apostles', would they again have been carrying out apostolic work without true apostolic authority?

No others to my understanding. But you may think differently. Names please.

stimulus:

Is this not suggesting a disregard for what Scripture teaches; as well as a contradiction of the gist of your argument all along? I mean, if someone holds an office in the church (whatever "office" you may delineate), would it be a healthy assumption to make that due to your reserving a 'right of veto', your wife is not expected to submit to such as hold that office ('even a church office holder')??

In a church setting, I would expect my wife to submit to officials. But if sday an official asked her to attend/serve at a program and I had other plans which meant she could not attend, she ain't goin' nowhere. And I don't have to explain either. "Wives submit to your own husbands". CHurch authority does not supercede or negate familial. So likewise if I and/or my wife decided not to let a child of ours partake in some church activity.

I hope this clarifies? What is your take? And how doo you feel I am contradicting myself?

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

I mean just that, that, a household can be considered a church. But I see your point, not always with the fullness of a larger congregation.

I still don't get you; because I've tried to reason along such lines, but can't find any verse teaching that. Which was why I offered the question. I don't believe there's any verse (IMHO) that teaches that "a family is a fully functioning church in it's own right" - whether or not the fulness was in terms of 'a larger congregation'.

TV01:

I believe that there are really only 2 church offices (carrying congregational authority), Elder and Deacon. Both restricted to mature men. There are however roles for women. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was writing with that distinction in mind, shold've said.

Okay, now I'm clearer as to what you might have been pointing to.

But even then, I would have to disagree with you on the strength such texts as the following:

"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" (I Cor. 12:28 )

What do you make of such texts?

TV01:

He was the last Apostle. But let's not digress, if you would like to discuss, please start a thread.

Well, I don't know if that one question is enough to open another thread. But I would appreciate your answer to that question all the same. Paul was not the last apostle, though. That's why I was asking in what sense or context you meant that he might have been the last.

TV01:

No others to my understanding. But you may think differently. Names please.

What do you make of this verse: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11)?? Are we to be restricted to the mere mention of names in order to see the point?

TV01:

In a church setting, I would expect my wife to submit to officials.

Which contradicts your earlier stated "right of veto". Your statement was:

"Niether do I expect my wife to submit to anyone just because they are male or even a church office holder (I reserve the right of veto)."

If you expect your wife to submit to any "officials" - surely those officials would include men for the most part - going by the gist of your arguments. Unless you might want to bring us round to understand how those "officials" differ from "even a church office holder".

TV01:

But if sday an official asked her to attend/serve at a program and I had other plans which meant she could not attend, she ain't goin' nowhere. And I don't have to explain either. "Wives submit to your own husbands". CHurch authority does not supercede or negate familial. So likewise if I and/or my wife decided not to let a child of ours partake in some church activity.

In which case everyone else would have to exercise that right of veto to see church authority as something under the whims of men who decide just about anything because they are husbands. That is not what the Bible teaches on the question of Church authority.

It is well for any man (husband) for his personal preference to do as he wishes. But let such a man/husband understand that he is taking upon himself to place his own rights above that which Scripture reveals as Church authority.

TV01:

I hope this clarifies? What is your take? And how doo you feel I am contradicting myself?

As above.

Cheers.

stimulus:

I still don't get you; because I've tried to reason along such lines, but can't find any verse teaching that. Which was why I offered the question. I don't believe there's any verse (IMHO) that teaches that "a family is a fully functioning church in it's own right" - whether or not the fulness was in terms of 'a larger congregation'.

Church is the Body and where two or more are there He is. Fellowship is not first, foremost or primarily between or with members. It's with the Father & the Son. We tend to typify church by the organisational structure we see today, but it was never such. "Church in your" house signifies that it is first a familial and then community based gathering. What defines church, it's limits or it's existence?

stimulus:

But even then, I would have to disagree with you on the strength such texts as the following:

"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" (I Cor. 12:28 )

I have asked repeatedly and I do so again, what does an Apostle do in this day and age? When is one required? Read Eph 4 through to see the whole point of these functions/roles/offices. Could that be better read vertically (through time) and not necessarily at a point in it?

stimulus:

Well, I don't know if that one question is enough to open another thread. But I would appreciate your answer to that question all the same. Paul was not the last apostle, though. That's why I was asking in what sense or context you meant that he might have been the last.

IMHO Paul was the last Apostle. In context I mean establishing the church according to the Lords blueprint. The "Foundational" exercise of establishing the church. Who were the others after Paul? Are there any now? Please identify them. What is it they do exactly?

stimulus:

What do you make of this verse: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11)?? Are we to be restricted to the mere mention of names in order to see the point?

My point as above. The established church requires only teaching and pastoral ministry (leaving out evangelism for our discussion here).

stimulus:

Which contradicts your earlier stated "right of veto". Your statement was:

"Niether do I expect my wife to submit to anyone just because they are male or even a church office holder (I reserve the right of veto)."

If you expect your wife to submit to any "officials" - surely those officials would include men for the most part - going by the gist of your arguments. Unless you might want to bring us round to understand how those "officials" differ from "even a church office holder".

In a church setting, I and my wife would be subject to the eldership. That is not to say that the authority of the eldership can be exercised in a manner that I feel negatively affects my family. So if theres a church program and I have other plans for my wife and family' time, as head of my home that is my call and I am responsible for that. Woman to man to Christ is the order. Clearly spelt out in I Cor 11.

As I said earlier, the family setting is one thing and the church another. that they dovetail does not compromise the family unit. And the relative importance and sway of the church is not IMHO such as many afford it today, where "pastors influence" can be overly pervasive.

I see no contradiction in what I have said. My wife submits to offices or others in assigned roles male or female, but a wifes prime directive is submission to her husband. What's not to understand?

stimulus:

In which case everyone else would have to exercise that right of veto to see church authority as something under the whims of men who decide just about anything because they are husbands. That is not what the Bible teaches on the question of Church authority.

It is well for any man (husband) for his personal preference to do as he wishes. But let such a man/husband understand that he is taking upon himself to place his own rights above that which Scripture reveals as Church authority.

~ Put alternatively what you are saying is "Church leadership" has the right to issue any command regardless of what the heads of family may feel is best for their homes?
~ The Church authority is limited to the church setting or gathering. But if you can show scripture to show that "Church Authority" supercedes that of the husband and impinges on the home, please do so.

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

Church is the Body and where two or more are there He is.

The two or three of Matt. 18:20 do not define "family" - and that's why I asked several times in what context you're using the word family. Rather, the two or three who gather unto the name of the Lord are gathered there as 'believers' - which is quite a different thing from your idea of a 'family' defined in terms of "a fully functioning church in its own right".

TV01:

Fellowship is not first, foremost or primarily between or with members. It's with the Father & the Son.

I understand that fellowship is primarily with the Father and the Son (I John 1:3) - and even that verse shows clearly that fellowship would be an abstract phenomenon if it is not expressed between believers. Which again would not at all mean the same as a family being a fully functioning church.

TV01:

We tend to typify church by the organisational structure we see today, but it was never such. "Church in your" house signifies that it is first a familial and then community based gathering. What defines church, it's limits or it's existence?

I don't see the Church typified more or only in terms of its organisational structure - nor can we even ignore the fact that a Biblical precedence for its structure is taught in the NT. "Church in your (or 'their', 'his') house" does not tessellate with your idea being queried. The terms in the various places where they appear are pointing to the simple understanding that the brethren met in the houses of the saints mentioned in such texts (Phlm. 1:2; Rom. 16:5; I Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15).

TV01:

I have asked repeatedly and I do so again, what does an Apostle do in this day and age? When is one required? Read Eph 4 through to see the whole point of these functions/roles/offices. Could that be better read vertically (through time) and not necessarily at a point in it?

My question in this regard was addressing your assumption that Paul was "the last apostle"; and not rather as to what an apostle does! We may have occasion to come back to this fresh oft-repeated question; but even so, Ephesians 4 does not tell us that Paul was "the last apostle".

TV01:

IMHO Paul was the last Apostle. In context I mean establishing the church according to the Lords blueprint. The "Foundational" exercise of establishing the church. Who were the others after Paul? Are there any now? Please identify them. What is it they do exactly?

Okay, let me help you come round this question by offering it more contextually: How many apostles do you see in the NT for the church? If we can identify or offer an answer to this question, it perhaps would help the understanding that there were other apostles besides the Twelve and Paul.

TV01:

My point as above. The established church requires only teaching and pastoral ministry (leaving out evangelism for our discussion here).

I'll take this issue up following the enquiry above.

TV01:

In a church setting, I and my wife would be subject to the eldership. That is not to say that the authority of the eldership can be exercised in a manner that I feel negatively affects my family. So if theres a church program and I have other plans for my wife and family' time, as head of my home that is my call and I am responsible for that. Woman to man to Christ is the order. Clearly spelt out in I Cor 11.

Your personal plans for your wife and family time should not supercede the concerns of Church authority; otherwise, what you accent to in I Cor. 11 is simply a matter of quotation without substance.

I do not believe that Church authority should be defined in terms of perceived issues that one feels "negatively affects" one's family. As far as Biblical revelation is concerned, such ideas and perceptions point to just one thing: man has set up his own personal plans above Church authority.

TV01:

As I said earlier, the family setting is one thing and the church another. that they dovetail does not compromise the family unit. And the relative importance and sway of the church is not IMHO such as many afford it today, where "pastors influence" can be overly pervasive.

I'm more concerned about Church life, and not rather personal assumptions.

TV01:

I see no contradiction in what I have said. My wife submits to offices or others in assigned roles male or female, but a wifes prime directive is submission to her husband. What's not to understand?

Please go back to your bold statement:

"Niether do I expect my wife to submit to anyone just because they are male
or even a church office holder (I reserve the right of veto)."

Now, your latest apologies are saying the direct opposite of that earlier statement. Your wife is neither to submit to ANYONE ("even a church office holder" is not the same thing as "my wife submits to offices or others in assigned roles male or female" - do you get the gist?

If a wife's prime submission is to her husband, and such husband places his "right of veto" as first above Church authority because he has fears of issues that might "negatively affect" his family, then in one straight simple statement: such a man is NOT submissive at all. I think when we discuss issues Biblically, we should be more concerned with what is declared in God's Word, than what man thinks might happen. The idea that Church authority means that a man preserves the right to refuse his wife's submission to some perceived ill says this much to me: perhaps that man is in an unhealthy church fellowship.

TV01:

~ Put alternatively what you are saying is "Church leadership" has the right to issue any command regardless of what the heads of family may feel is best for their homes?

Put alternatively, a man who places his personal "right of veto" above Church authority simply does not understand what the latter means; and has therefore chosen to set his own personal agenda above what Scripture teaches.

TV01:

~ The Church authority is limited to the church setting or gathering. But if you can show scripture to show that "Church Authority" supercedes that of the husband and impinges on the home, please do so.

Please refer above - "I'm more concerned about Church life, and not rather personal assumptions.". It would be nice to see you offer Scriptures for what you mean by a husband's "right of veto" superceding Church authority.

Hi Stimulus

Please refer above - "I'm more concerned about Church life, and not rather personal assumptions.". It would be nice to see you offer Scriptures for what you mean by a husband's "right of veto" superceding Church authority.

And I'm more concerned by family integrity and not your desire to subsume it to "church authority". Feel free to show from scripture that church life has primacy over family life.

Put alternatively, a man who places his personal "right of veto" above Church authority simply does not understand what the latter means; and has therefore chosen to set his own personal agenda above what Scripture teaches.

Again, clearly show from scripture that church life subsumes family life. And also that church authority over a family supercedes the husbands.

If a wife's prime submission is to her husband, and such husband places his "right of veto" as first above Church authority because he has fears of issues that might "negatively affect" his family, then in one straight simple statement: such a man is NOT submissive at all. I think when we discuss issues Biblically, we should be more concerned with what is declared in God's Word, than what man thinks might happen. The idea that Church authority means that a man preserves the right to refuse his wife's submission to some perceived ill says this much to me: perhaps that man is in an unhealthy church fellowship.

You mistake submissiveness for responsibility. A man answers to the Lord for his family' welfare. Church does not relieve a man of this responsibility. Likewise it does not supercede his authority. But like I have said, if you can show otherwise, please do. I'd appreciate your defining the limits to this "church over family authority"as well.

It's not about fear or submissivenes, it's about responsibility and accoutability. Families and husbands are not submissive to church. They are submissive in church, but still with regard to family integrity.

Please stop hammering on about the wife thing. I've done my best to clear that up. Apologies if I wasn't clear earlier, but once again. A wife has one head, her husband. The church gathering does not and cannot overide that. Simple. Both my wife and I are subject in church, but in as much as family takes priority, if I or we feel our family needs time for purposes that do not align with church, that's my/our call.

Your personal plans for your wife and family time should not supercede the concerns of Church authority; otherwise, what you accent to in I Cor. 11 is simply a matter of quotation without substance.

I do not believe that Church authority should be defined in terms of perceived issues that one feels "negatively affects" one's family. As far as Biblical revelation is concerned, such ideas and perceptions point to just one thing: man has set up his own personal plans above Church authority.

The concerns of "Church Authority" are limited to church. Feel free to substantiate your premise that Church has authority over individual families or it's members, in a way that overrides the scripturally instituted order for the family.

I am not defining church authority in terms of issues. Just a husbands responsibility according to his role and authority.

And my personal plans (and walk) are not subject to church authority. Church does not determine one's relationship or journey with God.

There is nothing to stop a family/household from worshipping directly. The choice of a man and his household to serve the Lord is not predicated on going to church, even if they attend. Commanding one's family after him is not in anyway determined by attending church even if they go.

Whilst the "church in your house" may well mean the brethren gathered there, if the brethren was no more than immediate family, relatives and or servants, it still qualifies as church. Family is the basic building block, not church.

Open another thread for the Apostle discussion if you please.

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

And I'm more concerned by family integrity and not your desire to subsume it to "church authority". Feel free to show from scripture that church life has primacy over family life.

You've come round really saying the very same thing I've been calling your attention to. My posts are not attempting to subsume anything. Rather, when you place your personal agenda above what the Bible teaches as Church authority, then you are demonstrating that your personal agenda takes precedence over Church life.

TV01:

Again, clearly show from scripture that church life subsumes family life. And also that church authority over a family supercedes the husbands.

If that husband places his own "right of veto" over and above Church authority, he should please show it from Scripture.

TV01:

You mistake submissiveness for responsibility. A man answers to the Lord for his family' welfare. Church does not relieve a man of this responsibility. Likewise it does not supercede his authority. But like I have said, if you can show otherwise, please do. I'd appreciate your defining the limits to this "church over family authority"as well.

I've not mistaken anything in context of what we have been discussing. this is the third time I would have to call your attention to this one fact: my concerns are more about Church life; and not a man's personal agenda. If you can define where in Scripture the right of veto takes precedence over Church authority, then you would have served this discussion a good turn; rather than attempting to misread me as subsuming anything where I have not done so.

TV01:

It's not about fear or submissivenes, it's about responsibility and accoutability. Families and husbands are not submissive to church. They are submissive in church, but still with regard to family integrity.

Responsibility and accountability are not expressed by a man's placing his own "right of veto" over the collective concerns of Church life. A man is responsible for his family; but note carefully that such domestic issues are not to be placed as priority over Church life (the collective concerns of the Church), in the same way as I do not read that a healthy church fellowship "infringes" on the domestic affairs of family life.

TV01:

Please stop hammering on about the wife thing. I've done my best to clear that up. Apologies if I wasn't clear earlier, but once again. A wife has one head, her husband. The church gathering does not and cannot overide that. Simple.

If you've been making very contradictory statements concerning what rights of veto you hold over Church authority as husband of your wife, what's the matter with calling attention to and querying that? The simple thing to bear in mind is that you have offered arguments that are clearly opposite to themselves; and if you cannot see that, there's no need for this reaction.

TV01:

Both my wife and I are subject in church, but in as much as family takes priority, if I or we feel our family needs time for purposes that do not align with church, that's my/our call.

Okay - that's your call; but that's not what the Bible teaches. Your personal/family needs do not define Church authority. Simple.

TV01:

The concerns of "Church Authority" are limited to church. Feel free to substantiate your premise that Church has authority over individual families or it's members, in a way that overrides the scripturally instituted order for the family.

What have I been saying all this time? "Church life" does not infringe upon family concerns, not so? But there again, I've stated that a man's personal agenda does not superced or take precedence over Church authority. Please, if you feel I'm mistaken, I'd be happy to see you offer texts to counter this, thank you.

TV01:

I am not defining church authority in terms of issues. Just a husbands responsibility according to his role and authority.

I'm not subsuming Church authority over a husband's responsibility. Just that a husband's personal agenda ("right of veto", "personal time", etc) do not take precedence over Church life and concerns.

TV01:

And my personal plans (and walk) are not subject to church authority. Church does not determine one's relationship or journey with God.

Okay - and there again is your personal plans. Your personal plans do not supercede Church authority; and a believer who understands this should clearly see that fellowship in Church is not a matter of one's personal agenda.

TV01:

There is nothing to stop a family/household from worshipping directly.

I haven't said anything was wrong with that. But that in itself does not make that family "a fully functioning church in it's own right" either.

TV01:

The choice of a man and his household to serve the Lord is not predicated on going to church, even if they attend. Commanding one's family after him is not in anyway determined by attending church even if they go.

I guess not - until you see that a family that chooses a man's preference is doing so at the risk of ignoring what the Bible teaches about the Church. One can "serve" the Lord, no worries. But that self-appointed path smacks of individualism to go it all alone as a freelancer who makes Church fellowship less than what it stands for in the revelation of the Lord's mind as taught in the Word.

TV01:

Whilst the "church in your house" may well mean the brethren gathered there, if the brethren was no more than immediate family, relatives and or servants, it still qualifies as church. Family is the basic building block, not church.

Family is the basic building block does not sound the same as a family being "a fully functioning church in its own rights". Brethren come together as "believers"; not as family members (even though families from the same lineage may be found in a local church). Please, never confuse the two concepts. If you're still holding on to the same "family functioning on its own right", please walk me through the Bible for this.

TV01:

Open another thread for the Apostle discussion if you please.

Which should mean that you simple can't give an answer to my question thereto, NO? And what then is stopping you from opening such a thread? Please oblige me and I'll meet you there.

Cheers.

@topic,

TV and Stimu, you two have moved us away from the topic at hand though I enjoy the exchange nevertheless.

This issue of church authority and man-wife relationship is a very touchy and personal one to me because I have watched a close family virtually disintegrate over it. Believe it or not, I think both of you are right in a sense though I tend to agree more with TV. I find it hard to make a categorical statement, one way or the other because the situation I witnessed was way too complex to be solved by saying to the participants "this is the way, walk ye in it." My advice then was, and still is: "follow the Spirit's leading." I guess that is the best advice from someone who doesn't want to get blamed for the eventual consequences, which either way won't be pleasant!

A married christian woman is in a very interesting position. By God's design, she finds herself under the leadership of two Lords - Christ and her husband. It so happens that the wishes of the two Lords are sometimes contrary to each other, especially if the husband is not born again as in the situation I witnessed. What happens in a situation where Christ tells her not to forsake the assembly of the brethren, and yet her husband tells her he will not have her go near the church? How does she handle a situation where her husband becomes a muslim and insists on dragging her and the kids to the mosque? It appears she has to scorn one of her Lord's wishes in order to please the other. She can't submit to one without disregarding the other.

Now this is closely related to the issues you guys are discussing here. Assuming the church calls out an extensive period of fasting and praying. And according to Paul, fasting must necessarily involve abstinence from sex too.  What happens if the husband is feeling randy tonight and wants to 'get it on'? At that point, she will have to make a choice of following the leading of her pastor (inspired by Christ to call out a fast), or submit to her husband for some carnal pleasing activities. What call would you make?

TayoD, I'll reply yours in the new thread so we don't derail this one. Thanks. 




Edited:
TayoD, done. Please see it here:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-62792.0.html#msg1246701

@ Stimulus

Do you speak at all in your congregation? Are you silent in your congregation? Not even a sigh comes from you huh?  

@Bobbyaf,

Well, it is clear that the issue is not about sighs; so I really don't know what you're after.

Most people here are just stating their personal opinions, not biblical standards

One lady said its about mens ego, another said it doesnot matter these days and my sister Babyosisi said it was a matter of personal opinion.

True Christians however follow scriptural directives.

IN THE TRUE AND PURE WORSHIP OF GOD, A WOMAN [/b]CANNOT[b] TAKE A POSITION OF AUTHORITY AS REGARDS TO INSTRUCTING, LEADING AND DIRECTING THE CONGREGATION OF GOD.

THE SCRIPTURES IS CLEAR ON THIS. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF PERSONAL OPINION.

TRUE CHRISTIANS PUT TO MIND THE COUNCIL FOUND AT 1TIM 2:11,12 AND 1COR 14:33,34.


WE MIGHT DO WEELL TO ASK OURSELVES

was God and his Son Jesus beign sexist, discriminatory or unfair when

1. God apointed only males to serve as priests

2 only males to serve as Levites

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

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

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

6 Only males took leadership decisions in the first century christian congregation in matters of worship, eventhough the women who had faithfully followed Jesus were there?

The clear precedent is there

True Christians follow that precedent, others do what they want

IN THE TRUE AND PURE WORSHIP OF GOD, A WOMAN [/b]CANNOT[b] TAKE A POSITION OF AUTHORITY AS REGARDS TO INSTRUCTING, LEADING AND DIRECTING THE CONGREGATION OF GOD.

THE SCRIPTURES IS CLEAR ON THIS. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF PERSONAL OPINION.

TRUE CHRISTIANS PUT TO MIND THE COUNCIL FOUND AT 1TIM 2:11,12 AND 1COR 14:33,34.

the sage has spoken.

Sage do keep in mind that this trendy modern society is an ever changing one.  We have mere mortals a.k.a dead-men-walking trying to rewrite the bible, or offer their off-base interpretations of it.  Feminism is the "IT" thing now, it's no wonder the women present with you on this thread are telling you that anything a man can do, so can a woman (not that I necessarily agree/disagree with them).

Cheers though, I won't say more. - Watch them come out and attack me now like the points I made aren't true.

@proverbial.

Many people here want to make it look as if it is a trivial and personal issue. NO WAY.

Thats why i asked if it was sexism or discrimination on the part of God and his son to appoint only Men to take the lead in pure worship with regards to acient Isreal, when Jesus established Christianity and during the first century christianity. Those ways of worship clearly had God's appoval as they followed scriptural precedent with regards to the role of females in the worship of God.

And some people have been making empty arguments here saying that there were Prophetesses in the past. These prophetesses in Israel never participated in leadership positions when it came to the worship of God.
It was the duty of Male priests and Levites.

All the women here can do well to borrow a leaf from the example of the faithful women that followed Jesus Christ.

They never agigtated for authority or complaind about beign discriminated against. They never claimed to have the same authority as the apostles or the other men that took the lead. THEY UNDERSTOOD THEIR PLACE IN GOD'S DIVINE ARRAINGMENT AND NEVER SOUGHT TO CHANGE IT. THEY RECOGNIZED THAT TRYING TO ALTER THAT WOULD SHOW GROSS DISREGARD FOR THE WAY OF WORSHIP OF GOD AND ULTIMATELY GROSS DISREGARD FOR GOD AND HIS SON.

and people that try to make this a trivial or personal issues are JOKERS big time.

You cannot alter divine standards using wordly wisdom. That is complete stupidity with and n the eyes of the almighty God.

For a way of worship to be accepted by God, it has to be conform to his standards otherwise it wont have his approval.

you too much jare, abeg carry go! continue.

I don't frequent this section of the forum much(blame controversy), but it feels good to know that there are some properly informed individuals still left.

@ TOPIC
It depends on the type of outfits she is wearing.
if she wears too much makeups
then she hasn't repented yet and can't preach to me ooo .
I'll tell her to go take a walk and find another job