@ Stimulus;

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

My response;
On the contrary, your so called fac that “women are also called to jointly exercise leadership” is a non fact. Because no where are they called. The scriptures that outline the qualities for leadership in a congregational setting are clear and unambiguously applicable to males.

Nobody has denied Ephesians 4:11. But it in no way charges women with leadership of the local congregation in the presence of suitably qualified mature adult males.

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

My response;
Yes it is sir. Scripture clearly and loudly proclaims it.

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

My response;
Whether you apply the word as age or Christian, it matters not a jot.

1. The older/mature men are not pointed to minister to the younger/immature, as the men who are qualified for leadership will do so.
2. Likewise for the women. They are pointed to minister/teach on domestic, home making issues. It makes absolute sense for that not to take up congregational teaching time as it is specific to women.
3. There is no hint of gifting or calling, only maturity, be it in experience or by age. Force-fit doctrine going on here.

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

My response;
Not at all, and it was not outlined as such. The outline for Eldership and the teaching aspect of it had already been outlined in the preceding chapter. You're still stretching.

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

My response;
Eldership is confined to suitably qualified males. Gifts, talents, ability and the like do not mean that one must be a leader or in themselves confer eldership. Neither are Leadership or Eldership pre-requisite to exercising gifts. The scriptures that speak to eldership are clear and plain, stop trying to spin them.

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

My response;
Old chap, leadership is ministry. Just not one that everyone is called to, or one that everyone can aspire to at all levels. Eldership as leadership as ministry is confined to suitably qualified males.

You wrote;
This reminds me again of TayoD's question earlier about whether it is only by "teaching" that women can usurp authority. My answer was no, but rather that is only one example! There are numerous examples of both men and women trying to "usurp authority

My response;
Don’t muddy the waters in an effort to blindside us. Yes, anyone can usurp authority but the scripture in view clearly speaks to women not teaching or usurping men in a church setting. The bible teaches the male preserve of eldership in church

There are loads of gender neutral scripture that speak to obedience and submission. The scripture in Timothy 2 speak specifically to a congregational setting.

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

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

My response;
Miriam did not lead co-equally with Moses and/or Aaron. The one place she was noted as leading, it was over other women.

I ceded your point about Deborah. I accept that she was a judge in the same capacity and with the same authority as the other judges.

I noted that the whole era of “Judges” was aberrant due to the meltdown of the time.

I also noted that Isaiah, clearly shows that things are grave when women take overall leadership

We have agreed severally that OT paradigms are not to be wholesale applied to NT life.

Noted also is the fact that your two instances , one inferred and the other contingent, do not overturn a historical and generational pattern

You are still playing to the gallery and trying to please everyone, whilst bending over backwards to justify your interpretation of scripture.

Christianity, salvation, service, gifts and grace are not about leadership. Leadership is just one facet of Christian life. The fact that scripture in this instance defines it in gender terms should not trouble anyone.

All Christian service/ministry is sacrifice. Eldership is no different, indeed, the sacrifices required, could compromise other areas where women have responsibility. Women carry a greater burden in the home and it would simply be unfair to expect them to give as much in church. And where they are free from burdensome home duties, they should focus on helping the younger women fulfill their roles in the home.

God bless
TV

^{You mean people are following, without weighing in? Analytical, I thought the reference to your "under-arm" sevice would flush you out earlier ! Hope you are enjoying Wimbledon. See how my girl Venus laid some hurt on that Communist poser !}

@topic,

I have only been away from here for about 48 hours and you guys have already filled up these pages! Well, I wish una more wax to your candles and more kerosene to your lanterns. It's all good anyways.

While going through your submissions, I noted the emphasis on the following points by the two main groups: Stimulus and TV01/Sage.

1. A female cannot exercise any form of authority over a male - TV's camp.

2. A female can lead a male and by entension exercise authority over a male - Stimulus.

3. Stimulus has a clause on her position, which is that a female cannot teach in church.

My persuasion still remains number 2 above without Stimulus' "footnote" as stated in Number 3.

I'll address each of the points now.

@TV01,

I noted the follwing statements you made earlier:

TV01 - (b)Please explain what constitutes usurping authority over a man/the men, if she is allowed to lead with them, if she is a partner and an equal in authority? You can only usurp one in  higher authority.

Usurping authority occurs when someone speaks on the behalf of a body or organisation without the proper authorisation from the head of that union. In which case, a woman can only usurp authority over a man that she is married to as she is only in union with him. She usurps authority when she speaks on the behalf of her marriage without delegated authority from her husband.  Here is Young's literal Translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 - and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,  
When the issue is the body of Christ, males are not in authority over females unless you are telling us the Body of Christ is made up of 3 different members: Christ - Males - Females. Any member of that Body usurps authority over Christ when they speak without delegated authority from Him. Male/Females are equal members of that Body.

All women and men are under authority, albeit it is normal for all women to be under male authority of some sort.

The issue here is headship which we know occurs only in 3 relationships: The Godhead, The Church and Marriage. Parents are not the "head" of their children as it negates your intepretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3 where you wrongly interprete the word man there as meaning male. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Going by your interpretation, a male child can never be under the authority of his parents becuase his 'head' is Christ, and neither can he be under the authority of his mother since a female cannot have authority over a male. These are the inevitable concomitance of your position.

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

Your first analogy here is very wrong. What union are you refering to that has Christ - Male - Female as members? Certainly not the church and not marriage. Let us look at 1 Corinthians 11:3 again.  
But I would have you know, that

1. the head of every man is Christ;Now this is not talking about the male. The word 'man' here is used generically to mean every body within the Body of Christ. Otherwise, you are telling us that Christ is the Head  of every male, whether born again or not. Now Paul explains this further in Ephesians 5:23 - For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: Colosians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: These scriptures are eloquent testimony that Christ is the Head of the Church and not the Head of males as you are erroneously interpreting it.

2. and the head of the woman is the man;This is talking about marriage where a male has pre-eminence over the female.  That preeminence does not exist within the Body of Christ despite the fact that the Chursh recognises the distinction and will not permit a wife to usurp authority (as I explained above) over her husband.

3. and the head of Christ is God.Now this is talking about the Godhead where Christ and the Holy Spirit are subject to the Father.  All this despite the fact that the 3 are ONE.

This scripture in 1 Corinthians specifies the 3 bodies where 'headship' exists. We need to get this right to properly interprete the scriptures we are all wrestling with.

I gave a new testament example of her wife and her husband. What has Deborah got to do with this? OT indicators are not binding on NT believers.

There is no principle that is taught in the O.T. that is violated in the New. Besides didn't Paul refer to the Law when he was doing the teaching about authority within the home never being violated in Church? 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

@TV01,

You mean people are following, without weighing in? Analytical, I thought the reference to your "under-arm" sevice would flush you out earlier ! Hope you are enjoying Wimbledon. See how my girl Venus laid some hurt on that Communist poser!

Aside, how do you watch Wimbledon when you have no TV at home? How you take dey do am?

@Stimulus

stimulus:

@Analytical,

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

Rascals? No, you guys are not.  I have had to consider again and again by the exchanges and I'm glad consensus are being reached, albeit laboriously!    We are all pressing to reach the mark, and so, learning.  For now, let me have the pleasure of receiving!

@TV01

TV01:


^{You mean people are following, without weighing in? Analytical, I thought the reference to your "under-arm" sevice would flush you out earlier ! Hope you are enjoying Wimbledon. See how my girl Venus laid some hurt on that Communist poser !}

You bet I'm following!  I simply refused to be pulled in earlier as you said.  I was almost concluding Venus should just face modelling and fashion, but she's proving me wrong!

---

@Topic,

More from you guys.

Blessings.

TayoD:

@TV01,
Aside, how do you watch Wimbledon when you have no TV at home? How you take dey do am?

SW19 is a short journey from my house. I have to occupy my time somehow when I am not posting on NL .

It is unBiblical for a woman to lead a church. Check out this article. http://www.carm.org/questions/womenpastors.htm It is too long to post here. The Bible and the Lord are the final authority, you can't pick and choose what you like out of the Bible. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, there is no compromise.

@TV01,

TV01:

On the contrary, your so called fac that “women are also called to jointly exercise leadership” is a non fact. Because no where are they called. The scriptures that outline the qualities for leadership in a congregational setting are clear and unambiguously applicable to males.

This is where you're clearly confusing issues for yourself. If you are thinking that eldership alone defines leadership, you have a huge problem understanding issues. The Body of Christ is bigger than a local congregation - and in Ephesians 4, I wonder if the gifts you read of in vs. 11 are issues that you are deliberately refusing to see up until this time!!

To make matters easier for you, please open that chapter and study it; and when you do, ask yourself there where you see the qualifications for eldership alone as if those gifts have to derive their authority from your idea of elders.

I'll offer you this: women are called alongside the men in the exercise of leadership in the Body of Christ, the Church. Leadership entails authority to care for others; and in the various capacities of leadership, I believe Ephesians 4 helps us understand this issue clearly enough. That is why I have both attempted to discuss it and apply them in practical ways; rather than theorize on them. The problem here is that you continue to make assertions in denial without so much as attempting to discuss them yourself; and in so doing, you're not giving any substance at all to this discussion other than merely fronting a few verses on what you call "overall leadership/authority".

Now, when you read Ephesians 4:11, I'd like to ask you this question: where is eldership in that chapter; and what do you make of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers? I guess you want to make these all subject to your idea of eldership - in which case an apostle has to be subject to an elder, yes? Rather than continue to scoot away from what is being offered there, at least make an attempt to look at what it says and see why your narrow views are hardly making any sense here.

TV01:

Nobody has denied Ephesians 4:11. But it in no way charges women with leadership of the local congregation in the presence of suitably qualified mature adult males.

To deny that Ephesians 4:11 points to an inclusive leadership exercise rather than an exclusive preserve of men is to deny that women are also called to leadership roles according to that text and its its explicatory verses following on around it.

TV01:

Yes it is sir. Scripture clearly and loudly proclaims it.

Please show me where it says that "overall leadership/authority" clearly and loudly is proclaimed as the exclusive preserve of men.

TV01:

Whether you apply the word as age or Christian, it matters not a jot.

It is this kind of arrogance that I will continue to challenge, because it is essentially the characteristic trait of prejudiced minds.

TV01:

1. The older/mature men are not pointed to minister to the younger/immature, as the men who are qualified for leadership will do so.
2. Likewise for the women. They are pointed to minister/teach on domestic, home making issues. It makes absolute sense for that not to take up congregational teaching time as it is specific to women.
3. There is no hint of gifting or calling, only maturity, be it in experience or by age. Force-fit doctrine going on here

The force-fit doctrine is thankfully yours. From Ephesians 4:11 - apostles (as only an example) would then mean that there is no hint as to their gifting or calling, yes? Bros, never try to narrow issues down to just your idea of eldership - and that is why I continue to edge you on to broaden your perspectives and see that there are various capacities of leadership!!

TV01:

Not at all, and it was not outlined as such. The outline for Eldership and the teaching aspect of it had already been outlined in the preceding chapter. You're still stretching.

I'm not stretching; I'm rather asking that you don't end your ideas on chapter 1 - go on to chapter 2 and see the point.

TV01:

Eldership is confined to suitably qualified males. Gifts, talents, ability and the like do not mean that one must be a leader or in themselves confer eldership. Neither are Leadership or Eldership pre-requisite to exercising gifts. The scriptures that speak to eldership are clear and plain, stop trying to spin them.

I'm not spinning nothing; rather I'm challenging your narrow ideas and constantly asking you go on and examine leadership for what it is in the Bible before making selective reading and hinging your persuasion on just a few verses. Is that too much to ask of you?

TV01:

Old chap, leadership is ministry. Just not one that everyone is called to, or one that everyone can aspire to at all levels. Eldership as leadership as ministry is confined to suitably qualified males.

Here, here, bros. . . do you read your own lines before you post? Let me break that line down:

"Leadership is ministry", you said -- and my question is: are men the only ones who are called to minister? If that is how you're still narrowing your views, it simply turns your whole argument on its head! Come back again and edit that line (or deny that you didn't say so), before I know what next to do with you.  

@TV01,

TV01:

Don’t muddy the waters in an effort to blindside us. Yes, anyone can usurp authority but the scripture in view clearly speaks to women not teaching or usurping men in a church setting. The bible teaches the male preserve of eldership in church

You're both agreeing with my premise nd accusing me of muddying the waters. TV01, don't let your heart race so badly. Leadership is NOT a chauvinistic preserve; and you cannot use eldership (which you really don't understand) as if that alone defines leadership!

Secondly, you're trying to cut corners here to suit your prejudice. Were you not previously projecting the idea that 'usurping authority' was a matter for the home? But now you're bringing it round rather to help your "male preserve of eldership" in the church!! Do you really have a ground to stand on, or you're so desperate push your male ego that you can't make out which is which?

TV01:

There are loads of gender neutral scripture that speak to obedience and submission. The scripture in Timothy 2 speak specifically to a congregational setting.

Aahh, you've finally crossed carpets! So 1 Timothy 2 is no longer applying to your idea of a family setting; but because you're desperate to smooth over your argument, you have to now apply it to "congregational setting". Smooth operator, not so fast!

TV01:

Miriam did not lead co-equally with Moses and/or Aaron. The one place she was noted as leading, it was over other women.

And what is the meaning of Micah 6:4 where God speaks of having sent all three - Moses, Aaron, and Miriam?

TV01:

I ceded your point about Deborah. I accept that she was a judge in the same capacity and with the same authority as the other judges.

Bless you. Em, sage. . . where you dey? Do I still keep my fingers crossed for you on this one here?

TV01:

I noted that the whole era of “Judges” was aberrant due to the meltdown of the time.

Maybe so. That would simply make the arguemnt for men-only also a non-issue. The point, however, was that God actually raised up a woman and invested her with authority as He did the men He had called in the same capacity of leadership over the entire nation.

TV01:

I also noted that Isaiah, clearly shows that things are grave when women take overall leadership

Isaiah 3 does not establish the idea that women in leadership roles suggest abberation among God's people. Men also have been principal detractors to God's divine economy among His people (see vss. 14 & 15). But the point in vs. 13 was that the prophet used it sarcastically - as again could be seen in Nahum 3:13.

TV01:

We have agreed severally that OT paradigms are not to be wholesale applied to NT life.

Noted also is the fact that your two instances , one inferred and the other contingent, do not overturn a historical and generational pattern

Those are not the only examples I offered. It was because dear sage kept on arguing for a male-only leadership from the OT that I constantly referred to those two examples until after having discussed them, you now see the point. However, there are examples in the NT which I have lightly touched upon, and as we move on will again be discussed in detail to highlight the case for women in leadership roles among God's people.

TV01:

You are still playing to the gallery and trying to please everyone, whilst bending over backwards to justify your interpretation of scripture.

Okay, thanks. If I was actually doing that then you'd not have had to argue this far with me. How could I have been pleasing everyone when indeed you're happen not to be pleased at all, eh?

TV01:

Christianity, salvation, service, gifts and grace are not about leadership. Leadership is just one facet of Christian life. The fact that scripture in this instance defines it in gender terms should not trouble anyone.

Salvation and service are not to be confused - and service actually indicates some connection with leadership. How? Would not I Cor. 12:28 help us a little here -- "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 apostles leaders? If not, would it not suggest that they had no authority but were merely gifts? Remember what you said earlier: "Leadership is ministry" - would that also apply here??

TV01:

All Christian service/ministry is sacrifice. Eldership is no different, indeed, the sacrifices required, could compromise other areas where women have responsibility. Women carry a greater burden in the home and it would simply be unfair to expect them to give as much in church. And where they are free from burdensome home duties, they should focus on helping the younger women fulfill their roles in the home.

Yep - and I believe the core concerns of this thread are about whether women can be leaders or not? That is what continues to inform my inputs.

Cheers.

@TayoD,

I almost don begin wonder where una dey; but thank God for your re-apeparance!

TayoD:

1. A female cannot exercise any form of authority over a male - TV's camp.

2. A female can lead a male and by entension exercise authority over a male - Stimulus.

3. Stimulus has a clause on her position, which is that a female cannot teach in church.

My persuasion still remains number 2 above without Stimulus' "footnote" as stated in Number 3.

Well, let me clarify my footnote (if you can allow that):

Leadership is a joint exercise; but that does not necessarily infer that whatever a man is called to do, so must a woman by default do likewise.

TayoD:

When the issue is the body of Christ, males are not in authority over females unless you are telling us the Body of Christ is made up of 3 different members: Christ - Males - Females.

Any member of that Body usurps authority over Christ when they speak without delegated authority from Him. Male/Females are equal members of that Body.

That again has been one of my concerns, and you have expressed it so well here. Bless.

TayoD:

The issue here is headship which we know occurs only in 3 relationships: The Godhead, The Church and Marriage.

Bless you again!

TayoD:

Parents are not the "head" of their children as it negates your intepretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3 where you wrongly interprete the word man there as meaning male. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Going by your interpretation, a male child can never be under the authority of his parents becuase his 'head' is Christ, and neither can he be under the authority of his mother since a female cannot have authority over a male. These are the inevitable concomitance of your position.
Your first analogy here is very wrong. What union are you refering to that has Christ - Male - Female as members? Certainly not the church and not marriage.

See why I have been so hungry for our senior teachers to come and weigh in on this subject? Analytical, wey you?

TayoD:

Let us look at 1 Corinthians 11:3 again.
But I would have you know, that

1. the head of every man is Christ;Now this is not talking about the male. The word 'man' here is used generically to mean every body within the Body of Christ. Otherwise, you are telling us that Christ is the Head of every male, whether born again or not. Now Paul explains this further in Ephesians 5:23 - For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: Colosians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: These scriptures are eloquent testimony that Christ is the Head of the Church and not the Head of males as you are erroneously interpreting it.

2. and the head of the woman is the man;This is talking about marriage where a male has pre-eminence over the female. That preeminence does not exist within the Body of Christ despite the fact that the Chursh recognises the distinction and will not permit a wife to usurp authority (as I explained above) over her husband.

3. and the head of Christ is God.Now this is talking about the Godhead where Christ and the Holy Spirit are subject to the Father. All this despite the fact that the 3 are ONE.

This scripture in 1 Corinthians specifies the 3 bodies where 'headship' exists. We need to get this right to properly interprete the scriptures we are all wrestling with.
There is no principle that is taught in the O.T. that is violated in the New. Besides didn't Paul refer to the Law when he was doing the teaching about authority within the home never being violated in Church? 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

TayoD, I thank God that He has further blessed me on this topic with your huge inputs. No, it is not simply because you seemed to have agreed partly with me; but even if you had not, believe me, you have helped me see what I hitherto had difficulty seeing.

I used to be all out for a male-only leadership/authority; but when I began to study the Word more and saw how wrong I was, the answers began to come in bits. Now I'm so blessed by your latest rejoinder - and may God bless you and everyone else (including TV01 and sage) here.

Regards.

Hi TayoD,

Asides aside, lets resume the discussion.

You wrote;
While going through your submissions, I noted the emphasis on the following points by the two main groups: Stimulus and TV01/Sage.

1. A female cannot exercise any form of authority over a male - TV's camp.

2. A female can lead a male and by entension exercise authority over a male - Stimulus.

3. Stimulus has a clause on her position, which is that a female cannot teach in church.

My persuasion still remains number 2 above without Stimulus' "footnote" as stated in Number 3.

My response;
A female of whatever status should not exercise authority over a mature Christian male, would more clearly state my position.

If a female can lead a male or attain to any position or level of authority that a male can and not be restricted in her reaching higher authority because of her gender or marital status, why are women not to teach in a congregational setting? That is anomalous. Likewise to say that women should not usurp male authority is also an anomaly, because authority would not be base on gender, but on office or function.

You wrote
Usurping authority occurs when someone speaks on the behalf of a body or organisation without the proper authorisation from the head of that union. In which case, a woman can only usurp authority over a man that she is married to as she is only in union with him. She usurps authority when she speaks on the behalf of her marriage without delegated authority from her husband. Here is Young's literal Translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 - and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,

My response;
Won’t quibble, only add. Authority is something that one place oneself under (even I would say before it is given). And it would include taking action as well as speaking

I checked a few translations, and the vast majority do not translate that word husband, but man. Having said that, I shall meet you right there.

It says “rule a husband”. That is to say “any” husband, the husband of “anyone”, not just her own. That just furthers my point as I have said no woman is to take authority over any mature male.

You wrote;
When the issue is the body of Christ, males are not in authority over females unless you are telling us the Body of Christ is made up of 3 different members: Christ - Males - Females. Any member of that Body usurps authority over Christ when they speak without delegated authority from Him. Male/Females are equal members of that Body.

My response;
Spiritually, creationally and, salvationally, I don’t cavil about equality. But practically the church is made up of males and females and more pertinently families. This is not overlooked in divine order and congregational structure. A certain amount of responsibility is devolved into the church by dint of the scriptural blueprint for its structure.

To say that they can be/are equal in terms of authority, means that women cannot in any way usurp men. If you insist that only refers to their husbands, that still leaves the “usurping authority over men” conundrum, as if authority is received direct from Christ, there is no reason for women not to have authority over men. You also ignore the congregational context of that verse.

You wrote;
The issue here is headship which we know occurs only in 3 relationships: The Godhead, The Church and Marriage. Parents are not the "head" of their children as it negates your intepretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3 where you wrongly interprete the word man there as meaning male. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Going by your interpretation, a male child can never be under the authority of his parents becuase his 'head' is Christ, and neither can he be under the authority of his mother since a female cannot have authority over a male. These are the inevitable concomitance of your position.

My response;
Not so. The issue is not headship, it’s leadership and it’s authority.
Parents have authority over their children. Because with responsibility comes authority.
You also misread my position and fail to see the flaws in your own.
My interpretation does not in anyway suggest that a male child cannot be under his parents authority, or should I ask that you show how, or what I have said that leads you to that inference?
You know I start from the home. Husband -> Wife -> Children, flows the line of authority. And please note the pains I have gone to to distinguish between mature adults and adults, adult from children/juveniles and a child/boy from a man.

You wrote;
Your first analogy here is very wrong. What union are you refering to that has Christ - Male - Female as members? Certainly not the church and not marriage. Let us look at 1 Corinthians 11:3 again.
But I would have you know, that

1. the head of every man is Christ;Now this is not talking about the male. The word 'man' here is used generically to mean every body within the Body of Christ. Otherwise, you are telling us that Christ is the Head of every male, whether born again or not. Now Paul explains this further in Ephesians 5:23 - For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: Colosians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: These scriptures are eloquent testimony that Christ is the Head of the Church and not the Head of males as you are erroneously interpreting it.

2. and the head of the woman is the man;This is talking about marriage where a male has pre-eminence over the female. That preeminence does not exist within the Body of Christ despite the fact that the Chursh recognises the distinction and will not permit a wife to usurp authority (as I explained above) over her husband.

3. and the head of Christ is God.Now this is talking about the Godhead where Christ and the Holy Spirit are subject to the Father. All this despite the fact that the 3 are ONE.

My response;
Surely you can see that your exegesis does not bear even cursory scrutiny? No doubt because it is so twisted to fit erroneous doctrine.
You points in 1. suggests the verse is talking about the congregation, whilst 2. suggests its marriage and 3. would be the Godhead, all in the same verse?
Pray tell, is the word translated man in verse 3 the same in both instances? And what of in verse 4?
And as the church has Christ as it’s head, a properly constituted Christian home will also.

You wrote;
There is no principle that is taught in the O.T. that is violated in the New. Besides didn't Paul refer to the Law when he was doing the teaching about authority within the home never being violated in Church? 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

My response;
1. Is Deborah judging Israel a principal? Please explain how it applies
2. The fact that somethings remain unchanged is noted, but does not mean that everything is carried over wholesale. Neither does it mean that Paul is championing the law, or that some parts of it still apply.

You are still trying to read nuance into scripture that does not exist. Apply paradigms that are not relevent and make arguements that do not hold.

Stimulus contines to obsfucate over leadership and eldership without making any specific declarations. he talks of "Leadership Capacity" and refuses to say whether there is an Eldership authoritry, and wether that eldership includes women. If they are equal in authority in the congregation, it is not a question of women usurping men, rather one of lower authority usurping higher.

I remain none the less convinced by your persuasions or your articulation of your positions.

God bless
TV

Dear TV01,

TV01:

Stimulus contines to obsfucate over leadership and eldership without making any specific declarations. he talks of "Leadership Capacity" and refuses to say whether there is an Eldership authoritry, and wether that eldership includes women.

I'd then have to take it that you're so much in a hurry to misread issues so that your comfort zone is not seriously rocked. Hey, I've already offered that eldership is just one aspect of leadership (it is not the ONLY leadership role in the NT).

Second, I've offered that the two are not the same thing - and that is why Ephesians 4 should have been carefully examined in your rejoinders. Third, you could as well offer me a clear instance where your "overall leadership/authority" is another term for "eldership" - in which case the elders are leaders over apostles!!

Until you understand issues clearly as to what leadership points to, as well offer the verse for "overall leadership/authority" as pointing to eldership, you'll keep marking time on the same spot with no substance to your further arguments.

TV01:

If they are equal in authority in the congregation, it is not a question of women usurping men, rather one of lower authority usurping higher.

I've also tried to offer you sage's reference to Korah as an example of a man trying to usurp authority - so it is not only women who are to be seen as doing so just because you happen to be unable to read beyond just one single verse.

In an effort to nail Stimulus down to actually stating something, let me ask this,

1. is Leadership the same as Eldership? And please explain Eldership.
2. is all Leadership equal

Leadership is a joint exercise; but that does not necessarily infer that whatever a man is called to do, so must a woman by default do likewise.

3. What do you mean by the above?

Secondly, you're trying to cut corners here to suit your prejudice. Were you not previously projecting the idea that 'usurping authority' was a matter for the home? But now you're bringing it round rather to help your "male preserve of eldership" in the church!! Do you really have a ground to stand on, or you're so desperate push your male ego that you can't make out which is which?

Never. My stance clearly infers that it is both church and home. Or please show where I have ever done so.

And what is the meaning of Micah 6:4 where God speaks of having sent all three - Moses, Aaron, and Miriam?

Just that He sent them. Does that mean that tyhey were co-equals. called together, comissioned together. When did God speak to Miriam to disclose her mission to her.

That Moses seconded her, is good enough for God.
God Who confirms the word of His servant, And performs the counsel of His messengers; Isaiah 44:26
You are just running real hard and not making any ground. Where did she ever give instruction, issue commands or take the lead (except over other women?). Enough already.

Isaiah 3 does not establish the idea that women in leadership roles suggest abberation among God's people. Men also have been principal detractors to God's divine economy among His people (see vss. 14 & 15). But the point in vs. 13 was that the prophet used it sarcastically - as again could be seen in Nahum 3:13.

It's better a good woman than an evil man. But that in no way overturns the divine order.

Those are not the only examples I offered. It was because dear sage kept on arguing for a male-only leadership from the OT that I constantly referred to those two examples until after having discussed them, you now see the point. However, there are examples in the NT which I have lightly touched upon, and as we move on will again be discussed in detail to highlight the case for women in leadership roles among God's people.

If you have any more examples acrros testaments or dispensations, please don't be shy in outlining them.

Salvation and service are not to be confused - and service actually indicates some connection with leadership. How? Would not I Cor. 12:28 help us a little here  --  "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 apostles leaders? If not, would it not suggest that they had no authority but were merely gifts? Remember what you said earlier: "Leadership is ministry" - would that also apply here??

As you claim I have no idea about Eldership, I lay the same claim against you regards Apostleship. The totality of Christian life and practice, ministry, gifts and talents are not limited to the established/mature congregation.

Yep - and I believe the core concerns of this thread are about whether women can be leaders or not? That is what continues to inform my inputs.

You have tried to argue for women as elders and as equals in all capacities and at all levels. because no one has said that women cannot lead in some capacity, to some degree or indeed certain situations. To say your whole thrust has been to state the case for females as leaders is evidence of your bottling it.

One final question. Can a plurality of female only elders lead a church?

Keep taking refuge in equivocation. It is more honest to take a stance an lets discuss, than to continually argue both sides, state all cases and take no position.

God bless
TV

@TV01,

I knew for a long time you had one desire: to have me nailed. It's a miracle I've survived your crucifixion thus far.

TV01:

In an effort to nail Stimulus down to actually stating something, let me ask this,

1. is Leadership the same as Eldership? And please explain Eldership.
2. is all Leadership equal

I guess you continue to deliberate close your eyes to my posts - as if I haven't offered answers clearly enough.

I offered to define leadership here:
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.160.html#msg1259802);

. . . and I have nowhere stated that leadership and eldership are the same, but that the latter is only one aspect of leadership -- "it is not the ONLY leadership role in the NT" (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.224.html#msg1266122)

What you're asking me to do is endlessly repeat myself; and if you are deliberately refusing to read issues, I don't think you're inviting a discussion at all.

TV01:

Never. My stance clearly infers that it is both church and home. Or please show where I have ever done so.

"order and authority emanate out of the family" (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.192.html#msg1260061)

"Could I be saying that Authority stems from the home? Of course I am not" (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.192.html#msg1261901)

And my question was: "you can't make out which is which?"

TV01:

Just that He sent them. Does that mean that tyhey were co-equals. called together, comissioned together. When did God speak to Miriam to disclose her mission to her.

It's a simple question I offered, TV01. If you're not going to discuss it, what's the point offering you further answers for you to come back with assertions in denial?

As regards your concern for "co-equals", I already said this: "Everyone each had a specific leadership role to fulfill; but bottomline here was that they were leaders OVER God's people!!" (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.192.html#msg1264592)

I really shouldn't mind you having me repeat myself endlessly - I'm used to it by now; and you can "nail" me all you wish. The one thing I ask is that you don't drive the nails in the pretence that you haven't read my answers to your endlessly repeated questions, especially when you're not even discussing issues but have rather been interested in denying them.

TV01:

That Moses seconded her, is good enough for God.
God Who confirms the word of His servant, And performs the counsel of His messengers; Isaiah 44:26
You are just running real hard and not making any ground. Where did she ever give instruction, issue commands or take the lead (except over other women?). Enough already.

Okay, I'm going to just let you drivel on in your male ego - although it doesn't have any import on what we're discussing. Let me ask you this: is it only those who give instructions that are leaders? Is that what made Aaron a leader by God's sending in Micah 6:4? Are people made leaders in the NT because they are set there in order to "give instructions"? The one thing that I asked of you as regards Micah 6:4, you haven't given me; rather, your male-pride is not even helping your arguments at all.

TV01:

It's better a good woman than an evil man. But that in no way overturns the divine order.

Is that your limp reply to your argument for Isaiah 3?

TV01:

If you have any more examples acrros testaments or dispensations, please don't be shy in outlining them.

Will do so in the course of our discussions, as I have never been shy stating my persuasions.

TV01:

As you claim I have no idea about Eldership, I lay the same claim against you regards Apostleship. The totality of Christian life and practice, ministry, gifts and talents are not limited to the established/mature congregation.

Right, I've asked you to look again at Ephesians 4:11 and make informed inputs. Too much to ask?

TV01:

You have tried to argue for women as elders and as equals in all capacities and at all levels. because no one has said that women cannot lead in some capacity, to some degree or indeed certain situations. To say your whole thrust has been to state the case for females as leaders is evidence of your bottling it.

It's either you're deliberately being mischievous here; or simply deliberately assuming your allegations against me. Let me show you how wrong are your accusations. These are my statements made in previous rejoinders:

1. ""Everyone each had a specific leadership role to fulfill" (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.192.html#msg1264592)

2. "Leadership is a joint exercise; but that does not necessarily infer that whatever a man is called to do, so must a woman by default do likewise." (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.224.html#msg1265989)

Do the above sound like I was making women equal in ALL capacities and at ALL levels? If you're only interested in being accusative and deliberately unreasonable, I lose nothing in leaving this thread for you, TV01.

TV01:

One final question. Can a plurality of female only elders lead a church?

Keep taking refuge in equivocation. It is more honest to take a stance an lets discuss, than to continually argue both sides, state all cases and take no position.

My position was clear enough, even if you deliberately refused to calmly reason them through. I thank you for your accusative spirit; and until I find grace in you for a discussion, you can as well keep your pride - I really don't need it. 

Regards.

Bro’ Stimulus;

Please, I beg;

Stop trying to align congregational life with secular imperatives and marry new-age political correctness with Christian doctrine

Stop being the champion of the purpose driven, seeker sensitive emergent church, when we are only after an honest scriptural discussion.

Stop trying to be all things to all people, equally proclaiming all positions, covering all bases hedging all bets and actually saying things that vary between “not very much” or “nothing at all”.

Stop equivocating, obfuscating, fudging, spinning and massaging. No more “press releases”, “corporate communications”, “political speeches” or “government addresses”

Stop swerving, curving dribbling and avoiding, dodging and evading, top-spinning and “robo-ing”

Stop being a shape-shifting, neither fish not fowl, chimera theologian

Stop cross-dressing masquerading and camouflaging

Stop the sleight of hand and street corner card tricks

Stop using smoke and mirrors

And please answer the question.

Can a plurality of female only elders shepherd a NT Christian congregation?

(even in the presence of or even regardless of the availability of suitably qualified males?).

Did you ever hear of the terms “yes” and “no”? really? Then please use them.  Ta!

God bless
TV

@TV01,

Many thanks for the manifestation of your rigid spirit, brother I thank you again and again.

Since you have refused to open your eyes and read my inputs, which in many instances do not fall into your allegations, I have offered to leave this thread for you until you invite a discussion. I'm least interested in your slobbers, so you can just as well save them.

Cheers. 

Okay brothers, cool temper!  After all, it's only a discussion 

@Stimulus

stimulus:

@TV01,

Many thanks for the manifestation of your rigid spirit, brother I thank you again and again.

Since you have refused to open your eyes and read my inputs, which in many instances do not fall into your allegations, I have offered to leave this thread for you until you invite a discussion. I'm least interested in your slobbers, so you can just as well save them.

Cheers. 

I must admit TV01's doggedness tends sometimes to stubborness and rigidity (TV01 Please I'm not being insultive here, just an observation).  I came to that same conclusion of yours when we were discussing Church Structure & Sole Authority Pastors, which also has to do with this topic.  But please, I appeal to all to keep it cool.

@TV01

Remember I chided you sometimes ago about pouring out your vituperations in discussions.  It only scares people away from further engagement.  The same advice still holds.  Keep it calm, brother.

@Topic

Now to answer you directly (IMHO) without equivocation:

Can a plurality of female only elders shepherd a NT Christian congregation?

YES!  To make a little clarification,  I want to see a possiblility of female-only elders/leaders happening in a congregation, since your question is 'Can?'.  If you follow Stimulus very well, you will see there is no gender dicrimination in Christian leadership. He is only providing a balance.  Let me give you an instance of all-female eldership happening.  In situations where you have female prisons, female schools etc and there are christian congregations, Yes!  You will have that.

(even in the presence of or even regardless of the availability of suitably qualified males?).

NO!  My persuasion is based on the fact that you don't have all-female congregation that often and I haven't seen a situation where you will have all-female leadership in  mixed congregations, except if the males are all kids!  My emphasis is on 'female-only'.

Now look at my conclusion made in the thread Should women preach?:

Preach ? Yes.

Teach in church? Yes.

Overall or final authority/head in home/church? Nope.

I still stand by this.  You may visit the thread to see my persuasions.

Okay, sorry !

So Analytical, you subscribe te female eldership, which presumes gender equality in church offices or function, or to put it another way congrgational activity is gender neutral?

Why not?  If the Holy Spirit so desires to call them into such offices as stipulated in Ephesians 4 and others (which Stimulus has countlessly tried to highlight) and as such into leadership roles in the congregation of the saints, who is man to hinder Him in doing that?  There is neither male nor female in Christ (Gal 3:28)!

I think the misunderstanding is coming from the different perceptions of eldership and leadership, which you haven't really obliged a clear answer to, according to Stimulus' posers.

TV01, why do think females cannot be elders?  And using my examples of female congregations above, who will constitute the leadership in such assemblies?

Analytical:

Why not?  If the Holy Spirit so desires to call them into such offices

God is Sovreign.When He does a thing, who can say unto Him "What doest Thou?"

Analytical:

into such offices as stipulated in Ephesians 4 and others (which Stimulus has countlessly tried to highlight) and as such into leadership roles in the congregation of the saints

As yet, no one has taken time out to articulate how the roles/offices/funtions/ministies outlined in Ephesians 4:11 operate in the congregational setting. Especially a mature one and most especially in light of the fullness of the dispensation we are now in.

I have asked severally and across threads, what does an Apostle do in congregational fellowship? And what exactly is the remit of a Prophet in the same setting? Indeed, is a prophet in these times in the mould of the Majors or Minors of the OT era?

Analytical:

There is neither male nor female in Christ (Gal 3:28)!

Stop that ! If return that stroke with the ferocity it deserves, you go dey begin dey adopt Forum Umpire demeanour !

That verse refers to over-arching issues of culture, tribe, class gender etc in salvational terms. There are verses and epistles that speak directly to the dynamics of congregational fellowship. Let's at least start there.

Analytical:

TV01, why do think females cannot be elders?  And using my examples of female congregations above, who will constitute the leadership in such assemblies?

2. I have outlined contingency and aberrations leading to overall female leadership. Of course in an all female congregation, that would be expected. The point is God in Christ-Jesus, not the primacy of males.

1. Elders cannot be female and females cannot be elders simply because the pre-requisite's for elders are gender based as outlined below;

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

Or this

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

Or this

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

I have repeatedly stressed the harmony of the order and authority instituted in the home
harmonising with being in many ways amplified in the church.

Notice that Church eldership (same as pastor/bishop/presbyter/shepherd/etc), is at once founded on an elder first ruling his own home (spouse and children) well.

Which harkens back to these OT insights

Genesis 18:19 - For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."

Joshua 24:15 - …, But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

It’s always home and Fathers first, congregation, community and society flow out of that. Even secularists know that much


God bless
TV

@TV01,

Can you kindly tell us what you understand the scripture is talking about in Galatians 3:28 - There is no male or female in Christ.

TayoD:

@TV01,

Can you kindly tell us what you understand the scripture is talking about in Galatians 3:28 - There is no male or female in Christ.

In brief (and in Galatians as a whole) , Paul was expounding on Salvation being by “Faith in Christ Jesus” and not by obedience to the law (or by works). As a corollary he was debunking any notion that there were dichotomies in how this salvation was to be obtained in regards to whatever man made constructs there were out there, be that race, culture, social status or gender based.

In terms of congregational dynamics, specifically order and authority, it says nothing that even remotely impinges on our discussion on this thread.

God bless
TV

@TV01,

A female of whatever status should not exercise authority over a mature Christian male, would more clearly state my position.

Why do you use the qualifier 'mature'? The scriputure we are referencing in 1 corinthians 11:3 never said anything about maturity.

why are women not to teach in a congregational setting?

The Bible didn't say a woman cannot teach in a congregationsal setting. If your interpretation of "women should keep silence in churches" means that, then I guess Paul must have excluded them also when he said "you may all prophecy one by one."

because authority would not be base on gender, but on office or function.

I agree that authority is not based on gender but on office and function. If indeed women cannot occupy the position of teachers, then you must be saying that the callings mentioned in Ephesians 4 are gender specific. That I cannot agrre with.

Authority is something that one place oneself under (even I would say before it is given). And it would include taking action as well as speaking.
I checked a few translations, and the vast majority do not translate that word husband, but man. Having said that, I shall meet you right there.

I agree with you here. In my understanding of scripture however, I do believe the context is talking about husbands and not just any male.

It says “rule a husband”. That is to say “any” husband, the husband of “anyone”, not just her own. That just furthers my point as I have said no woman is to take authority over any mature male.

Your point is not butressed at all here. If indeed the issue is usurping authority, my wife is not under your authority by any means even if you are married to 10 wives. She is solely under my authority and we are both under the authority of those set above us in the church. Please tell us how my wife will be usurping authority over you if she speaks in church!

Spiritually, creationally and, salvationally, I don’t cavil about equality. But practically the church is made up of males and females and more pertinently families.

This makes no sense. You covered every imaginable sphere in your conclusion that females are equal to males. Yet you are telling us in practical terms that a female should still be subject to a male. That is contrary to sound logic. A female is only subject to a male when they are married. This is just the principle of headship that God has put in place.

To say that they can be/are equal in terms of authority, means that women cannot in any way usurp men.

I have stated earlier that only a wife can use up her husbands authority. Anything contrary is sexual domination. For instance, would babyosisi be usurping my authority if we are in church together and she happens to be preaching or leading? No way, I have no single shred of authority over her. The authority over her there is her husband.

If you insist that only refers to their husbands, that still leaves the “usurping authority over men” conundrum, as if authority is received direct from Christ, there is no reason for women not to have authority over men. You also ignore the congregational context of that verse.

Congregationally, the church is made up of Christ vertically, and the church below Him horizontally. That the Church's recognition of marriage and the special male-female relationship in it is limited to that married set-up and not carried over into the body. How difficult is it to understand this concept?

Not so. The issue is not headship, it’s leadership and it’s authority.

I beg to disagree. The issue is "Headship". Authority is delegated in headship. That is why despite the equality of the Godhead, the final authority still lies with the Father. Same principle apply in marriage and the Church.

Parents have authority over their children. Because with responsibility comes authority.

Parents authority over their kids is not borne out of "Headship."  A man's authority over his wife is borne out of "Headship". Responsibilities do not always translate to authority.

You know I start from the home. Husband -> Wife -> Children, flows the line of authority. And please note the pains I have gone to to distinguish between mature adults and adults, adult from children/juveniles and a child/boy from a man.

Your dinstiction is not supported by any of the scriptures we've been discussing.

You points in 1. suggests the verse is talking about the congregation

Absolutely. the Bible is clear from other sciptures that Christ is the Head only of the Church and not the male. Pray tell, how can the spiritual be head over the carnal? How can the spirit be head over the flesh? The Christ is a spiritual Person who is Head over a spiritual Body - the Church.

whilst 2. suggests its marriage

Absolutely. A male is only head to a female who is his wife. Don't go tripping that you are head over my wife because of that carnal "instrument" you have. When I was joined to my wife, I became 'one' with her and the principle of headship kicked into gear to make me the one in authority.

and 3. would be the Godhead,  

isn't that clear enough?

all in the same verse?

yep. this is where I told you that the whole thing is about "Headship" which exists only in three relationships captured in that verse.

Pray tell, is the word translated man in verse 3 the same in both instances?
And what of in verse 4?

The greek word use in all verses is the same "Aner". That word is used to mean a male and also used generically to mean a male and female group. That is why there is so much confusion about it. A clear understanding of "Headship" with accompanying scriptures that I outlined above will make it all clear.
And as the church has Christ as it’s head, a properly constituted Christian home will also

And as the church has Christ as it’s head, a properly constituted Christian home will also.

Christ is not the Head of any home. He is the Head of the Church and the Church only!

@TV01,

1. Is Deborah judging Israel a principal? Please explain how it applies

That she judged the whole of Isreal with God's blessings proves that no principle was violated. Unless you want to tell us that God violated His principles by blessing Deborah's work.

2. The fact that somethings remain unchanged is noted, but does not mean that everything is carried over wholesale. Neither does it mean that Paul is championing the law, or that some parts of it still apply.

Like I said, there is no principle in the law that is violated in the NT. Please share any with us that you know of.

Y

ou are still trying to read nuance into scripture that does not exist. Apply paradigms that are not relevent and make arguements that do not hold.

By your opinion which of course I do not agree with.

Stimulus contines to obsfucate over leadership and eldership without making any specific declarations. he talks of "Leadership Capacity" and refuses to say whether there is an Eldership authoritry, and wether that eldership includes women. If they are equal in authority in the congregation, it is not a question of women usurping men, rather one of lower authority usurping higher.

I trust Stimulus can hold his own brief so I will not attempt to do so for him. There is one thing glaring in your conclusions, you think men are inherently in a position of authority over women. Nothing can be more further than the truth. Only a husband is in authority over his wife and that authority does not extend beyond that marriage. I remember my sister's brother-in-law trying to boss her around after she lost her husband in the last Bellview Plane crash in Naija. Such men must have been listening to your teachings a lot thinking he has inherent authority over her because of his dingy!

I remain none the less convinced by your persuasions or your articulation of your positions.

So do I.

@TV01,

In brief (and in Galatians as a whole) , Paul was expounding on Salvation being by “Faith in Christ Jesus” and not by obedience to the law (or by works). As a corollary he was debunking any notion that there were dichotomies in how this salvation was to be obtained in regards to whatever man made constructs there were out there, be that race, culture, social status or gender based.

In other words, Christ never looked at these irrelevant factors when he embarked on the work of salvation. After saving us however, he felt the need to dinstinguish between a male and a female. I though He once and for all broke down the middle wall of partition.

In terms of congregational dynamics, specifically order and authority, it says nothing that even remotely impinges on our discussion on this thread.

Na so you think.

I am enjoying the hot debate, you know. But I humbly suggest we write less to take everyone along. All the quotes are better summarised in a few words.

Let's keep rolling!

Thanks.


D notes too long.

@topic
Na d heart me dey look no b gender

I'd like to just ask one question: what is leadership?

@shinystar, it's alright for people to post as much as they could - explanations usually take a few more pages than mere statements.

Pls, where is it stated in the bible that a woman should not preach in the church? There are good female preachers like late Bimbo Odukoya, Reverend Mrs Idahosa, Pastor Mrs sanusi of RCCG, Houston, U.S. and other anointed women of God.

Olu-hak

why not?

[b]Well it is not about masculine chauvinsm or being gender sensitive. I think it's rather out of biblical and divine precepts that women though they should take other active roles in the church but Teaching and Leading n the presence of men.

Paul under Divine inspiration directed that women be silent in the church and even went as far as recommending that they rather ask for clarification from their husbands at home in matters not very clear. And as a mark of subordination Paul advised that When it is necessary for a woman to take up the role of Teaching which according to the scriptures is reserved for men ( When there is no qualified man), the woman must properly cover her "Hair" ( Headgear)
The reason Apostle Paul said is that it was the Woman that was Deceived by the Serpent and not the man. It seems in matters of Congregational Arrangement, it is not divine for women to take up positions of Authority when qualified men are present. It amounts to proper disregard for divine order and arrangement. In this our  modern day of Women Liberation philosophy it is rather absurd and unpopular to say that women are not elligble to direct the church in the face of qualified men. But remember that it is how God wants it. He knows why so He wants it. We can never begin to know better otherwise. Still it  doesn't debase  women. We only need to know that it is a matter of divine organisational arrangement. Afterall the Bible makes it clear that Women are still part of those that will gain Heavenly inheritance. So it is not women -bashing or gender-debasement for women to silently listen in the Church.[/b][size=8pt][/size]

@Wendell,

Wendell:

Well it is not about masculine chauvinsm or being gender sensitive. I think it's rather out of biblical and divine precepts that women though they should take other active roles in the church but Teaching and Leading n the presence of men.

I'd like to know what you might think leadership is.

If women are to be "silent", does that mean they are never to be heard at all in church?

What other active roles are there in Church that are for women?

@olu - hak


I tire oh