We got to move with the time I see nothing wrong attending a church led by a woman. A woman can give just as good as a man.

infact , na there i dey go this sundaay morning , just do over shift for work dey go church, u this people, u too selective ,

next thing u go dey debate be " can u go to church with short /tall pastor", heheh

N-joy:

We got to move with the time

Really? Why is that? Is God or His Word a bit dated? Or maybe The Lord is not cutting edge enough?

N-joy:

I see nothing wrong attending a church led by a woman.

The discussion is to make a case based on scripture. We all have feelings about ecerything, but what does the Bible say? What is God's heart on this matter?

N-joy:

A woman can give just as good as a man.

Venus Williams was lauding equal prize monety at Wimbledon. Funny how everyone overlooks tyhe fact that the work do 60% of the work the men do? If of course there was just the one open draw, women would'nt gain entry except as wild cards !

God bless
TV

@ TayoD et al,

I've been away for a bit, so am a little behind. I will attempt to catch up in the one post. Let me begin by claryfying a few things;

1. I do not say all men are the head of all women. A husband is the head of His wife, his family.
2. I never said that women must be always silent in church (who can shut them up anyewhere ?).

You join Stimulus et al in trying to shoe-horn the functions of Ephesians 4:11 into a regular congregational setting. Again, I invite any of you to explicate exactly how Apostles and Prophets articulate within the pastor/teacher/deacon roles of a mature local church.

I am not placing anybody's wife under authority to anyone but her husband. However, in a congregational settings and within the limits of church authority all are subject to the authority of the eldership. Said authority does not impinge on that instituted in the home.

If Christ is not the head of the Christian home, how do you articulate home authority and church rule? Would it be fair to say that you see the home as subject to the church?

Additionally, please explain who has authority over children, if indeed the only three headships are Christ/Church, Husband/Wife and God/Christ. Would Christ be the Head of all mankind, or just believers?

You have still failed to deal with the setting of both 1 Cor 11 & 14 and 1 Tim 2. Are you insistent that it's home, church or both?

If you are championing universal equality of the genders in congregational activity, you have to explain away any stipulations that restricts women from speaking or limits certain offices and functions to men, most notably the outline in the Pastoral epistles to Timothy & Titus.

Stimulus has repeatedly claimed universality with "buts". But they cannot teach, but they cannot usurp authority. Weakness in the positons of both are revealed when

1. TayoD says usurping authority is over husbands only. Fine, what of the teaching restriction? Also if a woman is elder in church and can teach (as you claim is permissable), whilst her husband is a mere bench-warmer, surely she has authority over him in church. So again, how can she be usurping him?

2. And Stimulus says universal gender equality "but" cannot teach or usurp authority. If it's UGE, as I have said, usurping would be on the basis of role and not gender.

If they are equal in church, there can be no usurping authority, and women should be permitted to teach or rule just as men do. Which of course means a woman should be able to be elder over her husband in church.

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

2. And Stimulus says universal gender equality "but" cannot teach or usurp authority. If it's UGE, as I have said, usurping would be on the basis of role and not gender.

I think it is rather unfair of you to be repeatedly misreading issues into stimulus' posts. He has consistently stated that he was not arguing for "universal gender equality", and for you to once again forcefully read that into his posts is unhealthy.

TV01:

You join Stimulus et al in trying to shoe-horn the functions of Ephesians 4:11 into a regular congregational setting. Again, I invite any of you to explicate exactly how Apostles and Prophets articulate within the pastor/teacher/deacon roles of a mature local church.

Perhaps you might help this discussion by providing answers to the same question you're asking. At least, I've read some offers in stimulus' posts on that Scripture, and I haven't seen where you attempted it even once. Even when he offered to ask how many apostles you read in the NT, you gave no answers until he obliged to open another thread for your sake.

Asking others to do what you haven't dared attempt is no way to discuss a topic, TV01. Let's read something more worthwhile, please.  

@TV01
You sabi talk, i sey move with the time, gone are de days women were seen and not heard, now we don get voice you dey fear. Women na natural born leaders na we born pikin and na we raise dem with little help from de man. Please make you go read your Bible and make you tell me again why oh why woman no fit lead for church.

I think it would help also to have a clear understanding of what leadership points to.

pilgrim.1:

I think it is rather unfair of you to be repeatedly misreading issues into stimulus' posts. He has consistently stated that he was not arguing for "universal gender equality", and for you to once again forcefully read that into his posts is unhealthy.

"Stimulus" please advise what your are arguing for or against, as I am finding it increasingly difficult to discern. If UGE is not your point, what is? Can a woman lead a church? My answer is no. First, because one person (all things being equal) does not shepherd a church and secondly eldership is open to men only. Quite simple really.

Polemics around "leadership capacity", "chauvinism", "male-ego" and the like do not make for coherently or succinctly stated facts or positions.

Let "Stimulus" state his position and points very clearly. Saying what you are not arguing for is not the same as saying what you are arguing for.

pilgrim.1:

Perhaps you might help this discussion by providing answers to the same question you're asking. At least, I've read some offers in stimulus' posts on that Scripture, and I haven't seen where you attempted it even once. Even when he offered to ask how many apostles you read in the NT, you gave no answers until he obliged to open another thread for your sake.

Au contraire. I don't see that Eph 4:11 has any bearing on our discussion on church structure and leadership. If anyone thinks it does, I can only invite them to outline how and why. So if anyone thinks it does, please do so.

pilgrim.1:

Asking others to do what you haven't dared attempt is no way to discuss a topic, TV01. Let's read something more worthwhile, please.

Agreed. I answer questions as posed. If one submits something, they should at least explain it's relevance or be willing to explain in a little more depth to those of us who may be too limited to see what is glaringly obvious to everyone else.

@ TayoD,

I was so puzzled by your reading "breaking down the middle wall of seperation" as the elimination of gender difference, that I went away to re-read, thinking I must have missed something? I see no way that scripture could be read to infer that.

N-joy:

You sabi talk, i sey move with the time, gone are de days women were seen and not heard, now we don get voice you dey fear. Women na natural born leaders na we born pikin and na we raise them with little help from de man. Please make you go read your Bible and make you tell me again why oh why woman no fit lead for church.

I am not pushing any of the things you have decried, nor denied any of the qualities you have lauded. Only that women are not permitted eldership roles in a church (all things being equal).

pilgrim.1:

I think it would help also to have a clear understanding of what leadership points to.

So why don't you take your own advice and submit something

God bless.
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

"Stimulus" please advise what your are arguing for or against, as I am finding it increasingly difficult to discern. If UGE is not your point, what is? Can a woman lead a church? My answer is no. First, because one person (all things being equal) does not shepherd a church and secondly eldership is open to men only. Quite simple really.

The point is simple enough: don't read issue into his posts - especially where he has again and again stated his points clearly enough.

TV01:

Polemics around "leadership capacity", "chauvinism", "male-ego" and the like do not make for coherently or succinctly stated facts or positions.

It was necessary to define such terms - and he has done so, especially what he meant by leadership. You keep coming back arguing issues without clearly defining what you're talking about!

TV01:

Let "Stimulus" state his position and points very clearly. Saying what you are not arguing for is not the same as saying what you are arguing for.

We have all been following the arguements; and I was beginning to be a bit concerned that you deliberately were repeating yourself again and again about the same thing, even though he pointed you back to his earlier statements, providing links thereto.

If you were actually discussing issues, I still haven't read your answers on some of the questions he offered - so I don't see how you could be asking others to do what you have not attempted.

TV01:

Au contraire. I don't see that Eph 4:11 has any bearing on our discussion on church structure and leadership. If anyone thinks it does, I can only invite them to outline how and why. So if anyone thinks it does, please do so.

Again, let me quote you: "Saying what you are not arguing for is not the same as saying what you are arguing for" - and that is what you have done with the appeal for you to discuss Ephesians 4:11. At least, stimulus has offered something on that chapter, and unless you're now coming back to say that apostleship has nothing to do with leadership in the CHURCH, then we can simply just end the argument here.

TV01:

Saying what you are not arguing for is not the same as saying what you are arguing for
Agreed. I answer questions as posed. If one submits something, they should at least explain it's relevance or be willing to explain in a little more depth to those of us who may be too limited to see what is glaringly obvious to everyone else.

And that is what we have been reading in others, but sadly not yours. Or, would you here be saying that there was no depth in the submissions of others - stimulus, TayoD, et al?

TV01:

So why don't you take your own advice and submit something

I'm quite satisfied with what stimulus offered earlier about what leadership points to.

Thanks pilgrim.1.  You are right!

@TV01,

Please oblige me and this board a very straight answer to this:  Can a woman be a deacon?  This is either a 'Yes' or 'No'.

---

Welcome back from Wimbledon.  Venus proved me and the bookmakers wrong and Nadal gave me a real scare!

@Analytical,

Blessings.

pilgrim.1:

The point is simple enough: don't read issue into his posts - especially where he has again and again stated his points clearly enough.

Really? Ok, please outline the differences between my position and that of "Stimulus" if you can.

pilgrim.1:

It was necessary to define such terms - and he has done so, especially what he meant by leadership. You keep coming back arguing issues without clearly defining what you're talking about!

Ask and I will answer. Repeatedly and in every post. I won't refer back. I am happy to repeatedly state my position if necessary, as I did in my last post.

Can a woman lead a church? My answer is no. First, because one person (all things being equal) does not shepherd a church and secondly eldership is open to men only. Quite simple really.

No re-defining or re-engineering words. Just a simply stated position.

pilgrim.1:

We have all been following the arguements; and I was beginning to be a bit concerned that you deliberately were repeating yourself again and again about the same thing, even though he pointed you back to his earlier statements, providing links thereto.

Making myself clear. If "Stimulus would do likewise, without obfuscating, we'd make progress.

pilgrim.1:

If you were actually discussing issues, I still haven't read your answers on some of the questions he offered - so I don't see how you could be asking others to do what you have not attempted.

Ask away.

pilgrim.1:

Again, let me quote you: "Saying what you are not arguing for is not the same as saying what you are arguing for" - and that is what you have done with the appeal for you to discuss Ephesians 4:11. At least, stimulus has offered something on that chapter, and unless you're now coming back to say that apostleship has nothing to do with leadership in the CHURCH, then we can simply just end the argument here.

1. You are not quoting me.
2. No one has explained how Ephesians 4:11 articulates into congragational activity.
3. No, apostleship has nothing to do with shepherding a mature local church.
4. If you think it has, please expalin how.

Stop shadow boxing around "Leadership". It's a cop-out. Where and how does the bible ever use or define it? Interprete scripture on it's own terms. You've used that as the crux of your arguement and when I attempted to meet you where you chose to stand, you came back with "there is nothing like overall leadership". Fine, answer the questions

~ Can women be elders?
~ If they can, can she have authority over her husband in church if he is not?
~ If there is equality how can usurpation be on gender terms?
~ If there is equality, why are there restrictions on teaching.

~ If you are not pushing UGE in the church (as I believe TayoD is), what exactly are you arguing for? To spend pages telling us that women can minister is pointless. If you want to sit on the fence, do so. Don't muddle the discussion. Or at least clearly state where you stand. TayoD did so when he rejoined. "I agree with this, I don't agree with this, and here's why".

Analytical:

Please oblige me and this board a very straight answer to this: Can a woman be a deacon? This is either a 'Yes' or 'No'.

No!

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

Really? Ok, please outline the differences between my position and that of "Stimulus" if you can.

Are we here discussing the difference between your posts, or you're assuming both of you have been saying the same things? My point is that he has stated clearly again and again and repeatedly that he is not arguing "universal gender equality" - and then again he has clearly stated his views that he sees a balance in the VARIOUS LEADRSHIP roles between men and women!! How else do you want him to state them??

Your argument has been that leadership in the church is exclusively reserved to men - and that idea is not what Scripture teaches at all! Is that so difficult for you to read, TV01? Coming back again and again to forcefully read your own assertions into his post is quite unhealthy - especially when he has reminded you again and again that he was not arguing what you misread into his posts.

TV01:

Ask and I will answer. Repeatedly and in every post. I won't refer back. I am happy to repeatedly state my position if necessary, as I did in my last post.

And what is so difficult in seeing what others have stated, instead of deliberately misreading issues into them?

TV01:

No re-defining or re-engineering words. Just a simply stated position.

No one was RE-defining or RE-engineering words. Within the contexts of what has been stated, it was necessary to understand what was being said - and I very appreciate the fact that you can't deny that stimulus has indeed defined leadership as clearly as possibly could be offered. What was so difficult in that?

TV01:

Making myself clear. If "Stimulus would do likewise, without obfuscating, we'd make progress.

He has clearly stated his views, please. Unless you just simply refuse to acknowledge them as such.

TV01:

Ask away.

I did, you declined.

TV01:

1. You are not quoting me.

Deny that the words in bracket are not yours.

TV01:

2. No one has explained how Ephesians 4:11 articulates into congragational activity.

He offered inputs on Ephesians 4, and was building up on them:

(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.160.html#msg1259793)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.160.html#msg1259802)

In view thereto, I stated: "unless you're now coming back to say that apostleship has nothing to do with leadership in the CHURCH, then we can simply just end the argument here."

TV01:

3. No, apostleship has nothing to do with shepherding a mature local church.

Was Paul an apostle? -- Yes he was (e.g., 2 Cor. 1:1)
Did apostle Paul care for any church at all? -- Yes he did (2 Cor. 11:28 - "Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches".
Is "caring" to be understood as "shepherding", TV01??

TV01:

4. If you think it has, please expalin how.

An example above.

TV01:

Stop shadow boxing around "Leadership". It's a cop-out. Where and how does the bible ever use or define it? Interprete scripture on it's own terms. You've used that as the crux of your arguement and when I attempted to meet you where you chose to stand, you came back with "there is nothing like overall leadership". Fine, answer the questions

Look here TV01, if this is a discussion, I'd oblige you. But if you want to start your stupid drivel and sly invectives, I could give as much as you ask for.

If you don't understand what LEADERSHIP actually means, please ask and others will be more than willing to help you see the point.

TV01:

~ Can women be elders?
~ If they can, can she have authority over her husband in church if he is not?
~ If there is equality how can usurpation be on gender terms?
~ If there is equality, why are there restrictions on teaching.

Is ELDERSHIP the only thing in the Church that defines LEADERSHIP?? I just want to know what you think first before I show you why it has forever been difficult for you to see the point that has already been made.

TV01:

~ If you are not pushing UGE in the church (as I believe TayoD is), what exactly are you arguing for? To spend pages telling us that women can minister is pointless.

Oh really? It might be more helpful for you to be open to discussions and not assume your assertions in denial that have not been quite as helpful.

TV01:

If you want to sit on the fence, do so.

I'm rather asking that you state your persuasions and not misread other posts.

TV01:

Don't muddle the discussion. Or at least clearly state where you stand. TayoD did so when he rejoined. "I agree with this, I don't agree with this, and here's why".

TV01, please, please and please, you don't own the thread. Second, don't try to boss anyone around. Third, please read posts before you assume your misconstructions. And lastly, I have already stated my position --- PREVIOUSLY!!!

@TV01,

TV01:

No!

God bless
TV

Thanks for the straight reply.  I asked that question based on your stance that eldership, and now deaconate, is for men-only:

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

I dare to disagree, sir!  I don't believe the reprequisite for elders, and deacons, are gender-based.  Let's examine the same scripture you used more carefully:

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?)

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.

It appears to me your position is based on those verses (same as in Titus).  But if you go rigidly by those letters of the words, then an elder or a deacon must be a married male!  This is not the case because Paul, through whom the Holy Spirit inspired those words, was not even married and he was an elder of the church.

Point 1:  You don't have to be married to be an elder or a deacon!

Secondly, those words ('husband of one wife') are not using gender as a prerequisite for being an elder or a deacon.  Rather, the issue being addressed in those words, I believe, is polygamy (in all its varieties)!  If you want to be an elder or a deacon of the church of Jesus, you must not be a polygamist!  The emphasis there on the word 'one'.

Point 2:  The issue being addressed in those highlighted words is polygamy and not gender![/color]

This leads us to the corollary therefore, that:

[color=#000099]Point 3: A female can actually be a deacon or an elder!

Let me give you an example of a female deacon right from the scriptures:

Romans 16: 1

I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

Phoebe was a deacon(ness).  The word translated servant is 'diakonon' from which we have 'deacon'.  Check Strong's Greek Dictionary to confirm:

diakonon - 'specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess) -- deacon, minister, servant.'.

This agrees with my 3 points above.  Therefore, if the prerequisite being used against female elders (husband of one wife) cannot hold for a deacon (whose qualification supposedly contains the same clause), then it means your interpretation of that clause is wanting, seeing obviously there was a female deacon in Romans 16:1.

Lastly, there is what I call a Converse Principle in interpreting the scriptures.  This works in cases where:

- it seems one gender is being addressed (Converse: the other gender is equally implied)
- blessings are attached to fulfilling certain conditions (Converse: curses for not fulfilling the same)
etc

A popular example is this:

2 cor 5:17

"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation"

The converse also holds:  "if any woman be in Christ, she . . . " because the emphasis is not on gender.

The same Greek word 'tis' (meaning some or any person or object) used for 'man' here is the same used in 1 Tim 3:1 -

"If a man desires the office of . . ."

That is why some translations render it as: "If any one . . ."

Using this principle therefore, it follows that for a married female (she may actually be a single) to be an elder or a deacon, she must be married to one man i.e. not be a polygamist, among other qualifications.

This, I believe, is the spirit behind those letters.

Blessings.

Are we here discussing the difference between your posts, or you're assuming both of you have been saying the same things? My point is that he has stated clearly again and again and repeatedly that he is not arguing "universal gender equality" - and then again he has clearly stated his views that he sees a balance in the VARIOUS LEADRSHIP roles between men and women!!  How else do you want him to state them??

I read the definition of "Leadership" and it basically means  "to care". Nobody has denied that women have ministry roles (or gifts, or callings or roles). Ministry is service, service is caring. If all you want to do is come up in here and play to the gallery, just say so

I made my point about "leadership", it's use and defining it for the contecxt of this discussion as pointless. It's a fudge, so you can appear to be saying what you know is not actually true, whilst being able to claim fidelity to scripture.

Plus you failed to answer my questions and of course re-introduce your new age speak. "Balance in leadership".  

I f leadership is to "care for" ~ A husband and wife balance caring for their children, does that obviate the authority as divinely instituted? Do leadership as care and balance in leadership actually mean anything, when noting that all the members have some ministerial capacity. You are really good at saying quite a lot with bugger all meaning.

Like I said answer the questions. Your bogus and convoluted shimmying around "leadership" and "balance", expose you for what you are, a vacillator.

Can women be elders? Yes or no. Simple.

Your argument has been that leadership in the church is exclusively reserved to men - and that idea is not what Scripture teaches at all! Is that so difficult for you to read, TV01? Coming back again and again to forcefully read your own assertions into his post is quite unhealthy - especially when he has reminded you again and again that he was not arguing what you misread into his posts.

More of the same. I did not introduce that term "leadership", and I used it in order to progress the discussion. I have never said "leadership" ( and not even by your definition) is reserved for men. I said ion my last post. That word "leadership" is not really a biblical term (which you glaringly overlooked). Further, there are more than enough terms in the bible from which to draw and upon which to base our discussions and inferences thereto.

Typical new-age, politic-speak. Re-engineer terms and meanings in order force a paradigm shift. Who shepherds? Elders. So again, can women be elders?

I've said repeatedly and will again, a church is shepherded by elders/bishops/pastors/presbyters or any such word of your choosing (plurality. Women are not permitted under STP to become elders. End of story. Who shepherds? Elders. So once again, can women be elders?

Keep whinging about balance and leadership.

So, because Paul in his foundational (Apostolic role) role  cared about the churches, therefore Apostles have a role to play in a mature congregation? No decent expalnation or outline. No insight as to lines of authority. Surely you can do better?

Listen carefully;

The Apostles & prophets founded/established the church on Christ as Cornerstone. Once the church is established there is no requirement for the Apostolic.

Paul along with his band of merry men were instituting the blueprint. It's why Timothy and Titus were told to raise up qualified men to run the churches that had been planted. At the time of true (and early) Apostolic work, there were simply no/not enough suitably qualified men. It's why I continually make the distinction "mature".

In due course a congregation matures and all that is required are SQ brethren to carry out the functions. Pauls "care" was in the fact that he mid-wifed and nursed the church/churches in infancy. He had to to and fro while he did this.  And epistles help clarify. Once established with suitably qualified males, it runs as a congregation of self contained mature brethren, with no need for oversight from anyone. Oversight was only required and in an Apostolic sense, as congregations were yet to fully mature. So the obvious thing to do is look to one with the blueprint.

It's the same blueprint we should employ today, except some would sneak in with new-age, move with the times, realpolitik, dialectal hogwash. And talk about leadership and balance.

Trying to push every non-related scripture to force-fit your erroneous notions, will not wash. Scripture does not contradict.

If you want to discuss, then do so, if you want to fudge, vacillate and obfuscate, ditch faith for politics.

God bless all who love Him in truth
TV

@ Analytical,

I appreciate your right to disagree. May we allcontinue to look to God and His Word for guidance.

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?)

Presumably verses 4 & 5 refer to women also?

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.

And verse 12? And could the “wives” in verse 11 be read as “husband” or maybe “spouse”?

It appears to me your position is based on those verses (same as in Titus).  But if you go rigidly by those letters of the words, then an elder or a deacon must be a married male!  This is not the case because Paul, through whom the Holy Spirit inspired those words, was not even married and he was an elder of the church.

I see this line of thought as somewhat flawed. You make the point that the thrust is against “polygamy”, a simpler and more obvious interpretation would be “if the man is married”, not that he “has to be married”

Point 1:  You don't have to be married to be an elder or a deacon!

=> Point 1: is wide, as I didn’t claim one did.

Point 2:  The issue being addressed in those highlighted words is polygamy and not gender!

=> Point 2: is out, as both are being addressed, and without contradiction. Women could not be polygamous at that time, which only buttress the point that it is men as in males that are being referred to.

This leads us to the corollary therefore, that:

Point 3: A female can actually be a deacon or an elder!

=> Point 3: A double fault. Probably as the basis is flawed and the premise faulty.

Phoebe was a deacon(ness).  The word translated servant is 'diakonon' from which we have 'deacon'.  Check Strong's Greek Dictionary to confirm:

diakonon - 'specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess) -- deacon, minister, servant.'.

Please, we have thrashed this severally. This is at best debatable. As you have been honest enough to note, it could be minister (aren’t we all?) or servant. And like I have often said, whether elder, deacon, minister or any other office/function/role, it’s about service. Net court, net out.

Lastly, there is what I call a Converse Principle in interpreting the scriptures.  This works in cases where:

- it seems one gender is being addressed (Converse: the other gender is equally implied)
- blessings are attached to fulfilling certain conditions (Converse: curses for not fulfilling the same) etc

So? It doesn’t apply in every instance and not here.

Using this principle therefore, it follows that for a married female (she may actually be a single) to be an elder or a deacon, she must be married to one man i.e. not be a polygamist, among other qualifications.

As above, wrong premise, wrong principle, wrong scripture.

God bless
TV

@TV01,

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?)

Presumably verses 4 & 5 refer to women also?

Just as the verses don't just mean they must be married men with children!  What if the person here is not married and don't have children- just as Paul?  Does he still qualify as an elder/deacon?  I'm trying to let you see that those verses don't preclude singles as well as females.  They are only saying 'in case he/she is married' or 'if he/she has a family'.

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.

If you check other translations, the word rendered 'Likewise their wives' say 'Women in like manner'.  In other words, 'if the person happens to be a woman' the same applies.  In fact some translations say 'Deaconesses . . .'  Remember it is not talking of every member of the congregation here.  This place is discussing those to be appointed as deacons.  They are stipulations for both male and female!

I see this line of thought as somewhat flawed. You make the point that the thrust is against “polygamy”, a simpler and more obvious interpretation would be “if the man is married”, not that he “has to be married”

I did say the emphasis is against polygamy (in all it's varieties), whether one spouse at a time, many at once, or whichever form.  If the person is married, (s)he must be to one person only (except of course if the cause of separation is death), which is consistent with NT christianity!  If not that scripture would have read simply 'married' instead of saying 'the husband of one wife'.

=> Point 2: is out, as both are being addressed, and without contradiction. Women could not be polygamous at that time, which only buttress the point that it is men as in males that are being referred to.

Both male and female, married and single, having children or without, are being addressed.  I think it's all-encompassing.  Why do you think women could not be polygamous at that time?  Consider it's varieties.  Remember the woman by the well of Samaria?  She had 6 before and the 7th one was not even married to her!

Point 3: A double fault. Probably as the basis is flawed and the premise faulty.

No fault there, it stands!

Please, we have thrashed this severally. This is at best debatable. As you have been honest enough to note, it could be minister (aren’t we all?) or servant. And like I have often said, whether elder, deacon, minister or any other office/function/role, it’s about service. Net court, net out.

I know we have been through that before.  But the fact remains that Phoebe was called a deaconess, which you said females cannot be.  Of course any christian work is about service.  Who is debating Phoebe being a deaconess?

So? It doesn’t apply in every instance and not here.

It dosen't apply in every case, but the context and evidence from Phoebe proves it applies here.

Many blessings.

Hi Analytical,

Just as the verses don't just mean they must be married men with children!  What if the person here is not married and don't have children- just as Paul?  Does he still qualify as an elder/deacon?  I'm trying to let you see that those verses don't preclude singles as well as females.  They are only saying 'in case he/she is married' or 'if he/she has a family'.

The outline speaks to the requisite qualification for elders/deacons. IFF they are married , it must be to the one wife (polygamy as we are aware was a problem).

As I have repeatedly said, church rule dovetails and harmonises with home authority, and I personally see scripture as starting with the home. They must rule their own homes (wife and children) well, as a pre-requisite to serving as elder/deacon. But this is IFF they have them. There are and have always been instances of barreness in congregations. Is childlessness a disqualifier? If anything, childlessness would give one more time to minister to the flock. It is gender based, not marital status, or age.

It precludes females. Females do not rule homes, cannot marry wives, and could not commit polygamy/polyandry in that age, due to their status in society.

Analytical:

If you check other translations, the word rendered 'Likewise their wives' say 'Women in like manner'.  In other words, 'if the person happens to be a woman' the same applies.  In fact some translations say 'Deaconesses . . .'  Remember it is not talking of every member of the congregation here.  This place is discussing those to be appointed as deacons.  They are stipulations for both male and female!

I will check this claim out. Care to mention any?

Analytical:

I did say the emphasis is against polygamy (in all it's varieties), whether one spouse at a time, many at once, or whichever form.  If the person is married, (s)he must be to one person only (except of course if the cause of separation is death), which is consistent with NT christianity!  If not that scripture would have read simply 'married' instead of saying 'the husband of one wife'.

Agreed re the emphasis on polygamy. But the emphasis is also on gender. Can a woman be the "husband of one wife (food for the same-sex brigade)?" Are women generally considered "violent" Do women "rule" homes? Read the outline for deacons again. It says "Likewise their wives", are you claiming this is gender neutral or should necessarily read "spouse?"

Analytical:

Both male and female, married and single, having children or without, are being addressed.  I think it's all-encompassing.  Why do you think women could not be polygamous at that time?  Consider it's varieties.  Remember the woman by the well of Samaria?  She had 6 before and the 7th one was not even married to her!

No sir, adult, mature, suitably qualified males were being addressed. The woman by the well was not a polygamist. She was an adulteress. The status of wopmen precluded polygamy/polyandry on their part, as I stated previously.

Analytical:

I know we have been through that before.  But the fact remains that Phoebe was called a deaconess, which you said females cannot be.  Of course any christian work is about service.  Who is debating Phoebe being a deaconess?

Phoebe was a servant and "a helper of many". It is at best debatable that she was anything more than it reads. Why do we have to ferret out tenuous examples,  to prove debatable claims in order to support doubtful doctrine?

Analytical:

It dosen't apply in every case, but the context and evidence from Phoebe proves it applies here.

I do not agree it does. Do you have anything else to offer in support of your position?

So, can a woman be elder with authority over her husband in Church?

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

I read the definition of "Leadership" and it basically means  "to care". Nobody has denied that women have ministry roles (or gifts, or callings or roles). Ministry is service, service is caring. If all you want to do is come up in here and play to the gallery, just say so

The topic is more to the point of churches being LED by women, not about your own playing to galleries. That in itself is what I was more concerned about, and I trust you should be sensible enough to appreciate that. Now the basic question has been one about what LEADERSHIP entails; and all along you have been narrowing it down to just eldership as if that is the only leadership role taught in the Word. If you are open to discussion and understood what leadership involved, you would not be so narrow minded as to have seen it as something exclusively reserved unto men.

TV01:

I made my point about "leadership", it's use and defining it for the contecxt of this discussion as pointless. It's a fudge, so you can appear to be saying what you know is not actually true, whilst being able to claim fidelity to scripture.

And your point about leadership is . . . what? You don't assume you know a dot about what it entails and yet have not been able to clearly demonstrate the same other than your limited ideology that has not helped further your understanding on the subject.

TV01:

Plus you failed to answer my questions and of course re-introduce your new age speak. "Balance in leadership".

What I offered is not new age; and what you offered in your narrow views does not define "leadership" for all that it is in the Word.

TV01:

I f leadership is to "care for" ~ A husband and wife balance caring for their children, does that obviate the authority as divinely instituted? Do leadership as care and balance in leadership actually mean anything, when noting that all the members have some ministerial capacity. You are really good at saying quite a lot with bugger all meaning.

Weak souls like you make the Church a sad place to be in. You often hide behind the excuse of having authority over your wife (poor woman when you marry her); and yet your narrow and myopic understanding continues to miss the point. Who has argued about your phobia of "divinely instituted" authority in the Church "obviating" what you feel threatened at home with?

TV01:

Like I said answer the questions. Your bogus and convoluted shimmying around "leadership" and "balance", expose you for what you are, a vacillator.

I'm not what you assume - and I've actually dealt with your betters with more serious inferiority complexes. If my answers are not helpful, the worst you can do is go home and cry on the laps of your wife-to-be.

TV01:

Can women be elders? Yes or no. Simple.

I believe they can. Yes. Simple.

TV01:

More of the same. I did not introduce that term "leadership", and I used it in order to progress the discussion. I have never said "leadership" ( and not even by your definition) is reserved for men. I said ion my last post. That word "leadership" is not really a biblical term (which you glaringly overlooked). Further, there are more than enough terms in the bible from which to draw and upon which to base our discussions and inferences thereto.

You should simply have stated you dreaded the word "LEADERSHIP" - I know it's a simple word that rocks your chauvinistic narrow world. How about the following:

1 Tim. 3:5 - "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"

Heb. 13:7 - "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."

Heb. 13:17 - "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

Heb. 13:24 - "Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you."

1 Cor. 12:28 - "And indeed [those] whom God set in the Assembly [are]: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, next miraculous powers, next spiritual gifts of healings, helpers, leaders [or, administrators], [various] kinds of tongues." (ALT).

James 5:14 - "If you are sick, ask the church leaders to come and pray for you. Ask them to put olive oil on you in the name of the Lord." (CEV).

Heb. 13:17 - "Obey your leaders and do what they say. They are watching over you, and they must answer to God. So don't make them sad as they do their work. Make them happy. Otherwise, they won't be able to help you at all." (CEV).

I didn't get those highlighted terms pertaining to "leadership" outside the Bible, and you can continue to fight against such words if you so wish.

TV01:

Typical new-age, politic-speak. Re-engineer terms and meanings in order force a paradigm shift. Who shepherds? Elders. So again, can women be elders?

As far as "shepherds" are concerned, women are also called to exercise such roles in the Church - that's the message of Ephesians 4. You childish rants are not helping you, TV01, and you'll do better if you grew up and stand acting the child you are - your nanny is not going to remain slaving at you all summer.

TV01:

I've said repeatedly and will again, a church is shepherded by elders/bishops/pastors/presbyters or any such word of your choosing (plurality. Women are not permitted under STP to become elders. End of story. Who shepherds? Elders. So once again, can women be elders?

This is interesting. Those who "care for" God's church are only men, is that it? Gave gave His Spirit to only those "men" and left out the women altogether, is that what you're saying?

TV01:

Keep whinging about balance and leadership.

I'm not, my dear. I see a balance in Scripture, and I'm aware it is the one ting that you dread. That shouldn't be surprising - that is why you altogether made a mess of the OT examples of women in LEADERSHIP over God's people . . until stimulus' posts brought you folding your tail between your legs!

TV01:

So, because Paul in his foundational (Apostolic role) role  cared about the churches, therefore Apostles have a role to play in a mature congregation? No decent expalnation or outline. No insight as to lines of authority. Surely you can do better?

Most definitely I could do better. I offered you a simple question for discussion; and if you're beginning again to whimper, how do I help you?

TV01:

The Apostles & prophets founded/established the church on Christ as Cornerstone. Once the church is established there is no requirement for the Apostolic.

Ephesians 4 does not teach us that. That is the classic argument of people who have denied God's gift to His Church until they also claimed miracles are a thing of the past! The apostles in that chapter are included among those in verse 11 for the on-going ministry that results in verse 12 & 13:

  "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

That is why Christ gave those gifts in verse 11; and that is why I agree with stimulus question and would like to repeat it here again: "How many apostles do you read in the NT"?

TV01:

Paul along with his band of merry men were instituting the blueprint. It's why Timothy and Titus were told to raise up qualified men to run the churches that had been planted. At the time of true (and early) Apostolic work, there were simply no/not enough suitably qualified men. It's why I continually make the distinction "mature".

Then should we presume that "mature" is another word that applies exclusively to men?

TV01:

In due course a congregation matures and all that is required are SQ brethren to carry out the functions. Pauls "care" was in the fact that he mid-wifed and nursed the church/churches in infancy.

In that "care" - was Paul a leader exercising leadership or not?

TV01:

He had to to and fro while he did this.  And epistles help clarify. Once established with suitably qualified males, it runs as a congregation of self contained mature brethren, with no need for oversight from anyone. Oversight was only required and in an Apostolic sense, as congregations were yet to fully mature. So the obvious thing to do is look to one with the blueprint.

In all fairness, so that I don't misread you, what you have just said is that there is no need for "oversight" from anyone today?

TV01:

It's the same blueprint we should employ today, except some would sneak in with new-age, move with the times, realpolitik, dialectal hogwash. And talk about leadership and balance.

Ahh yes, besides your foaming in the mouth, I just want to know from you whether or not there is leadership and/or balance in the Body of Christ.

TV01:

Trying to push every non-related scripture to force-fit your erroneous notions, will not wash. Scripture does not contradict.

Neither is Scripture biased as to narrow issues the way you have been doing.

TV01:

If you want to discuss, then do so, if you want to fudge, vacillate and obfuscate, ditch faith for politics.

I offered you a discussion previously; but since you're presenting yourself less than can be discussed with, we'll just see how long this rigid spirit of yours is going to last. The funny thing is that after stupidly casting aspersions on others, you top it up with a hypocritical "God bless" at the end as if that would wash your pharisaic hump. Please don't make me laugh.

wow

ive been away for a while. When did sister Pilgrim join the debate .
Its getting hot in here .

@Pilgrim. Ive gone thru your argument and you are making the same mistake that Stimulus is making


TV01 is trying to bring it accross to you that those that are allowed to teach, shephard and lead within the Church and on Church issues as the letter to Titus directed are the Elders. All true Christians came/come under the shepharding care of this Elders and followed/follow their lead. And the holy spirit reserved that role exclusively for men.

Ehe i said i was gonna make a concise discussion from the bible but ive been away for a while.

Now that im back 4 a while im feeling so lazy , Il be back soon though

Hi sage,

Good to read once again from you. Like you, I sometimes get very busy and can only manage to read bits here and there from various threads.

However,

I don't know if stimulus was making a "mistake"; but I quite agree with his views for the most part. And the big question for me is defining the scope of leadership. Rather than see it as something exclusively reserved to the men, it might perhaps help us see the various leadership roles which Scripture offers in the Church - and that is where (I believe) we should help this discussion by seeing the balance being offered.

sage:

TV01 is trying to bring it accross to you that those that are allowed to teach, shephard and lead within the Church and on Church issues as the letter to Titus directed are the Elders. All true Christians came/come under the shepharding care of this Elders and followed/follow their lead. And the holy spirit reserved that role exclusively for men.

I don't mind TV01 discussing issues - and that is what we've offered several times. But after that appeal went unheeded, I won't tolerate his discourtesies.

However, I think when you carefully look at the highlighted part of your rejoinder, it would only be fair to say that you're rather helping to make my point. I'm trying to understand just two things:

1/ Is eldership (as you may define it) the only leadership in the Church?

2/ Are all elders necessarily doing the same one thing - teaching?

Perhaps you might understand my concerns better if you give these questions a moment's thought. Even so, I do appreciate yours even though I don't really agree with the one premise in yours.

Regards.

I believe women can serve in leadership positions but being the supreme head is what is unbiblical. Women are not created to lead and where they did, we all can attest to the calamities they wrecked. I am set to be cricified now!

@shinystar,

Let me be the first to crucify ya!

Okay, just kidding.

shinystar:

I believe women can serve in leadership positions but being the supreme head is what is unbiblical. Women are not created to lead and where they did, we all can attest to the calamities they wrecked. I am set to be cricified now!

Two things I'd like to say here:

1/ I absolutely agree with you that (a) women can serve in leadership positions; (b) they are not called to be 'the supreme head' - as that is the prerogative of Christ. In which case, I don't believe that being 'the supreme head' is what the men are called to be either.

2/ You know, let me tease you a bit:

Last night when we discussed this in our fellowship and someone said something to the same effect, there was noise! It was like stirring a bees hive. I sat quietly listening to the hot and spirited excahnge of "ideas", and could only manage to pick this one from the lot -

He - 'Women are dangerous - I mean, look at the calamities they bring to our world!'

She - 'Hold your peace! Who actually sold the Lord for 30 pieces of silver?!'

Laughter. . .

He - 'But our problem did not start today. . it dates way back to Eden! As a matter of fact, after the dust settled, na God talk say the man was not deceived!'

She - 'You no well! Before Christ comes back, na God talk say the anti-Christ would be the son of pedition! Talk about calamities! No one expects the anti-Christ to be a woman!'

He - (softly appealing) Why don't you just state what you believe and leave all that kind talk, eh?'

More laughter.

She - Until you guys learn to appreciate us, we shall continue to call your attention to what God's Word says! I mean. . . even when a woman anointed Jesus in preparation of the burial, did He not say that wherever this Gospel shall be preached, a woman must be mentioned? Have you guys been doing that?'


Look, I left the fellowship laughing so hard from that skit - but was blessed by the ministry of our pastor afterwards.

@TV01

The outline speaks to the requisite qualification for elders/deacons. IFF they are married , it must be to the one wife (polygamy as we are aware was a problem).

It is gender based, not marital status, or age.

It precludes females. Females do not rule homes, cannot marry wives, and could not commit polygamy/polyandry in that age, due to their status in society.

In other words, that particular prerequite is conditional, based on IF they are married.  Put another way, it doesn't apply to someone considered for that office that is not married since he has no wife nor children to rule.

Now try and remove that clause, assuming we are considering a single, and you will see your argument fizzle out!  The same goes if the consideration is for a woman.  That is why the Holy Spirit has to address women (candidates for the office and not every woman in the assembly) as well in that same outline for elders and deacons likewise.

Mind you, polygamy is still a problem today, with its varieties!  The woman of Samaria was not just an adulteress, she had 5 (sorry not 6 as stated previously) previous husbands:

John 4 vs

16 He said to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.”
17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’;
18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.”

To such, yes she can be a believer, but NT christianity says she can't be an elder/deacon.  Period!

I will check this claim out. Care to mention any?

Here you have them.  In fact, majority of the translations:

1 Tim 3 vs 11-

- The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things. (Revised Standard version, RSV)

- [The] women likewise must be worthy of respect and serious, not gossipers, but temperate and self-controlled, [thoroughly] trustworthy in all things. (Amplified Bible)

- Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. (American Standard Version, ASV)

- Women are to be serious in behaviour, saying no evil of others, controlling themselves, true in all things. (Bible in Basic English, BBE)

- The women in like manner grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. (Darby Bible Translation, DBY)

- Deaconesses, in the same way, must be sober-minded women, not slanderers, but in every way temperate and trustworthy. (Weymouth New Testament)

- Women -- in like manner grave, not false accusers, vigilant, faithful in all things. (Young’s Literal Translation, YLT)

- Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. (New American Standard Bible, NASB)

- No exceptions are to be made for women—same qualifications: serious, dependable, not sharp-tongued, not overfond of wine. (The Message)

- Women must also be serious. They must not gossip or be heavy drinkers, and they must be faithful in everything they do. (Contemporary English Version)

- Also it behooveth women to be chaste, not backbiting, sober, faithful in all things. (Wycliffe New Testament)

- In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. (Today's New International Version)

Agreed re the emphasis on polygamy. But the emphasis is also on gender. Can a woman be the "husband of one wife (food for the same-sex brigade)?" Are women generally considered "violent" Do women "rule" homes? Read the outline for deacons again. It says "Likewise their wives", are you claiming this is gender neutral or should necessarily read "spouse?"

As explained above.  Please don't read same-sex into this discourse.  Do single males rule homes too?  Or have children to have in subjection?  Provision is adequately made for women in that outline.

Phoebe was a servant and "a helper of many". It is at best debatable that she was anything more than it reads. Why do we have to ferret out tenuous examples,  to prove debatable claims in order to support doubtful doctrine?

Let's put this to rest now.  Phoebe, however you want to describe her, was a deaconess.  Take time out to check the reference in many translations.  I previously offered the exact Greek word translated servant there, and it is the word translated as deacon.  Same used for the first 7 deacons Philip, Stephen etc.  This is not debatable.  I am not even saying what her duties were as a deacon, but the fact that she was a deacon(ness), just as Stephen, Phillip and co.

If you are saying, she was merely a servant and a helper of many, her service and help was in the same class as that of Stephen and co because they were all deacons.  What is tenuous and debatable there?

Or what does it mean to be a deacon?

Blessings.

The topic is more to the point of churches being LED by women, not about your own playing to galleries. That in itself is what I was more concerned about, and I trust you should be sensible enough to appreciate that. Now the basic question has been one about what LEADERSHIP entails; and all along you have been narrowing it down to just eldership as if that is the only leadership role taught in the Word. If you are open to discussion and understood what leadership involved, you would not be so narrow minded as to have seen it as something exclusively reserved unto men.

But since you have re-defined "lead" as "care", that is not exactly true is it
I have never claimed Leadership = Eldership, even going by your re-engineered meaning
So once again, leadershp is open to all, eldership is open to males only. Simply stated.

I believe they can. Yes. Simple.

Assuming you don't have a peculier interpretation of eldership, pray tell, if women can be elders,
what is it if anything that precludes UGE in church? Also if women can be elders, how can usurpation be on gender lines and why can't they teach?

After all I have agreed that Deborah was a judge with all the capacity of the male judges right? Are you now turning around to say that women elders are not to function in the full capacity of male elders?

Why spend reams, re-defining and re-enginering, which served only to becloud and obscure?. Why not just say, "women can do this and this, but not this (and why)". Or, they can do anything/everything. Then points of difference can be discussed

Ephesians 4 does not teach us that. That is the classic argument of people who have denied God's gift to His Church until they also claimed miracles are a thing of the past! The apostles in that chapter are included among those in verse 11 for the on-going ministry that results in verse 12 & 13:

  "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

That is why Christ gave those gifts in verse 11; and that is why I agree with stimulus question and would like to repeat it here again: "How many apostles do you read in the NT"?

Who has denied miracles?
Please tell us, what do apostles do in this day and age?

In that "care" - was Paul a leader exercising leadership or not

Whoops, swallowing your own tail. I thought you said care was leadership?

In all fairness, so that I don't misread you, what you have just said is that there is no need for "oversight" from anyone today?

A mature congregation with SQ elders in place has no need for oversight.  Matters arising can be discussed and settled within. There can of course be recourse to elders/mature believers in other locations, but that in no way suggests they are/have to be subject in some way to them, or some other authority outside their locale.

The church has been founded, the blueprint is published. No more apostles or those doing apostolic  (foundational) work. Even church started in a place that had not hitherto heard the gospel would be established as laid down by scripture and according to the prescribed pattern and established doctrine. "The faith once for all delivered". Nobody can bring new doctrine, new revelation or anything foundational. What Paul and the other apostles prescribed was and is authoritative.

Why would oversight oversight of mature congregations be required? And in any event, why would this oversight be "Apostolic"?

Once a church has SQE in place any oversight/outside care becomes unecessary, they are autonomous in ruling and caring for each other.

What Paul and those of that era (apostles or not) where doing ws establishing this foundation according to a blueprint. All we do now is build on it. Not re-define or re-engineer it, as some would have us do  ! Canon is closed. We know how church should function, what is right, what is acceptable and what is wrong. We know why we congregate, we know how the dynamics of church and family relationships are supposed to work.

Try reading earlier back in Ephesians, before you become overly fatigued by trying to articulate your whole understanding on the one verse. With due consideration congrgations can discuss and agree. Matthew 18 may help here.

Apologies for ignoring most of your obviously hormonal driven diatribe  !

God bless.
TV

@Analytical,

Thatnks so much for your input. My persuasuins are exact same with yours with regards to the scriptures you've been discussing. I mentioned earlier in the debate that I will get to the various scriptures that TV and Sage use to propagate their male pre-eminence but you pre-empt me.

In any case, I held back from discussing the scriptures because I believe a foundation needed to be laid, and while I have been unequivocal about my stand, TV has been playing it both ways. I'll explain.

I feel the foundation that needs to be laid for this discussion is the equality in all aspects of relationship between both sexes. The only time a male gets pre-eminence over a female is within the marriage relationship. Within the Body of Christ, we are regarded as one. While TV says he agrees with this on one hand, he violates that basic principle in reserving some roles for women within the body. I wonder why he kesps saying that a woman can not exercise authority over mature male because he feels that will be usurping authority over the mature male. But he has failed to realise that the only mature male a female can usurp authority over is her husband. No matter how mature you are, you have no ounce of authority over my wife. My wife's submission to the authorities in church is not because of their sex, but because of the office they occupy as Christ's representative.

The only seeming "advantage" the scripture testifies that a male has over a female is the fact that the female is regarded has having a weaker vessel, and we know that relates solely to the flesh. If the role of elders have nothing to do with how strong a person is, why set the women aside then? The whole argument just doesn't make sense to me.

Like I said earlier, enlightenment will come as soon as we realise that preeminence for the male exists only within the confines of a married relationship, anything beyond that is just turning divine order on its head.

@TV01,

I remember you saying something earlier about a man being the "head" of his family including the children. That is absolutely untrue. A man is head only of his wife, same a Christ is the "Head" of the Church and the Church only.

A man's authority over his children does not stem from "headship" in as much as your government and boss' authority over you does not stem from "Headship".

"Headship" is what God had in mind when He said "It is not good that the man should be alone." Adam's creation in God's image was incomplete without him in a relationship with a dinsticnt person that is one with him. God must have looked at the Godhead, and envisioned the Church and concluded that Adam by himself does not represent these relationships.

Adam became a true image of the Christ to come when he had a wife. Children were not part of the equation when God now saw that all that He created was "Very Good". I hope my elaborate explanation is well understood now.

TayoD:

I remember you saying something earlier about a man being the "head" of his family including the children. That is absolutely untrue. A man is head only of his wife, same a Christ is the "Head" of the Church and the Church only.

I'm sure niether of us wants to get bogged down in semantics here. A father has authority/rule over his children.

I am not saying everyman man is the head of every woman. At home its husband then wife, at church it's SQM elders who have a call/responsibility to shepherd the flock.

TayoD:

"Headship" is what God had in mind when He said "It is not good that the man should be alone." Adam's creation in God's image was incomplete without him in a relationship with a dinsticnt person that is one with him. God must have looked at the Godhead, and envisioned the Church and concluded that Adam by himself does not represent these relationships.

TayoD, you have to buttress your points more when you introduce hitherto unknown superstitions ! or maybe I should say, I don't know that one O, please explicate further! I could have sworn it was "companionship".

TayoD:

Adam became a true image of the Christ to come when he had a wife. Children were not part of the equation when God now saw that all that He created was "Very Good". I hope my elaborate explanation is well understood now.

It was far from elaborate sir. And no, I am non the wiser

God bless
TV

TayoD:

Thatnks so much for your input. My persuasuins are exact same with yours with regards to the scriptures you've been discussing. I mentioned earlier in the debate that I will get to the various scriptures that TV and Sage use to propagate their male pre-eminence but you pre-empt me.

Oh man! that's harsh, labelling me a chauvinist pig .

I am not suggesting male pre-eminence. Just differing aeas of ministerial duty. Who ever said that eldership was about pre-eminence? Not in singular or plurality. You appear to be confusing the biblical outline of servant-leadership, with the bombast and excess of modern day MOG's. If people truly understood the hardship, rigours and privation suffered by those "pre-eminent" in the early church, they'd run a mile.

TayoD:

In any case, I held back from discussing the scriptures because I believe a foundation needed to be laid, and while I have been unequivocal about my stand, TV has been playing it both ways. I'll explain.

Oh man!!
Now you are calling me "forked tongued"

TayoD:

I feel the foundation that needs to be laid for this discussion is the equality in all aspects of relationship between both sexes. The only time a male gets pre-eminence over a female is within the marriage relationship. Within the Body of Christ, we are regarded as one. While TV says he agrees with this on one hand, he violates that basic principle in reserving some roles for women within the body. I wonder why he kesps saying that a woman can not exercise authority over mature male because he feels that will be usurping authority over the mature male. But he has failed to realise that the only mature male a female can usurp authority over is her husband. No matter how mature you are, you have no ounce of authority over my wife. My wife's submission to the authorities in church is not because of their sex, but because of the office they occupy as Christ's representative.

In creation, in salvatio, in value, in worth and in complementing each other in union, men and women are equals. In service as in union, they may have more to do in certain areas.

In a family relationship it's husbands that can be usurped
In a church relationship, it's divinely instituted eldership authority that can be.
As no man has authority over anyone but his wife, no woman has authority over any mature man.

TayoD:

The only seeming "advantage" the scripture testifies that a male has over a female is the fact that the female is regarded has having a weaker vessel, and we know that relates solely to the flesh. If the role of elders have nothing to do with how strong a person is, why set the women aside then? The whole argument just doesn't make sense to me.

So theny are not equal? Talk of forked tongues !

Weaker vessel = Solely to the flesh? ~ The  woman being decieved = ??

If in the church, there is UGE, why cannot women teach? If the only difference is physical strength. and nothing else, why can't they teach?

God bless
TV

@TV01,

I'm sure niether of us wants to get bogged down in semantics here. A father has authority/rule over his children.

It's not about semantics but about getting things straightened out the way it should be. It is lack of this understanding that makes people interprete that Christ is the Head of the male and henceforth justify the male-female dichotomy in Christ.

I am not saying everyman man is the head of every woman. At home its husband then wife, at church it's SQM elders who have a call/responsibility to shepherd the flock.

So do you agree then that a woman can only usurp her husband's authority and not any mature male's authority which is the bone of contention here.

TayoD, you have to buttress your points more when you introduce hitherto unknown superstitions ! or maybe I should say, I don't know that one O, please explicate further! I could have sworn it was "companionship".

I will oblige you because I believe many people need to understand this concept. First, it couldn't be companionship that God was talking about. Adam couldn't have been lonely. He was created perfect and the only relationship he must have longed for was God's.
Second, we are told that God created Adam in His own image. The question to be asked then is what is god's image? Paul answerd that in 2 corinthians 4:4 when he said Christ is the image of God -lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, In order words, the image of God that He planned to replicate in man was Christ and Christ is represented only in marriage when there is a union of a male and a female. Why do you think the devil is attacking marrigae so much these days? That is the spirit of the anti-Christ at work fighting against everything that represents the Christ.

It was far from elaborate sir. And no, I am non the wiser

I hope you now get it and if you disagree, please provide evidence to validate your position.

@TV01,

Oh man! that's harsh, labelling me a chauvinist pig .

Don't tempt me men !

I am not suggesting male pre-eminence. Just differing aeas of ministerial duty. Who ever said that eldership was about pre-eminence? Not in singular or plurality. You appear to be confusing the biblical outline of servant-leadership, with the bombast and excess of modern day MOG's. If people truly understood the hardship, rigours and privation suffered by those "pre-eminent" in the early church, they'd run a mile.

How convenient. You are not canvassing for male pre-eminence yet you argue for male positions based on scriptures that teaches male pre-eminence within the marriage context. So have the elders in your local assembly ran a mile by now?

Oh man!! Now you are calling me "forked tongued"

Very tempting to do that, but I'll hold my tongue

In creation, in salvatio, in value, in worth and in complementing each other in union, men and women are equals. In service as in union, they may have more to do in certain areas.

Your case is baseless here. We know why a male has pre-eminence in union, but why would they in service? What relationship exists in service that necessarily requires the male to have a different role to females? At least we know that the pre-eminence of Christ over the church necessitates the pre-eminence of the male over the female in a marriage.  You might think I am being dogged about this, but the fact remains that there has to be a guiding principle behind every action.

In a family relationship it's husbands that can be usurped
In a church relationship, it's divinely instituted eldership authority that can be.
As no man has authority over anyone but his wife, no woman has authority over any mature man.

You are gradually agreeing with me. If your word in bold are to be believed, then no way a woman can usurp authority over any male, mature or not. And if the one in authority in church is based on the office, a woman occupying that office does not usurp authority over the mature males because it is the office that is representing the Christ and not the sex.

So theny are not equal? Talk of forked tongues !

Weaker vessel = Solely to the flesh? ~ The  woman being decieved = ??

The woman being deceived occurs exclusively within the confines of marriage. She usurped authority over her husband when she spoke to that serpent. The Serpent refered to them as a unit and instead of her to cede the voice of that union to Adam, she opened her mouth and spoke. That is the same context Paul had in mind in the NT.

@TayoD

Thatnks so much for your input. My persuasuins are exact same with yours with regards to the scriptures you've been discussing. I mentioned earlier in the debate that I will get to the various scriptures that TV and Sage use to propagate their male pre-eminence but you pre-empt me.

Thanks, brother.  I was enjoying myself on this discussion with great minds like you, TV01, Stimulus, Pilgrim.1 et al (By the way, where are Shahan, Syrup etc?) without contributing until I couldn't resist again.  I guess we are all learning and adding to our knowledge of Him.  You know the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6b)

I will oblige you because I believe many people need to understand this concept. First, it couldn't be companionship that God was talking about. Adam couldn't have been lonely. He was created perfect and the only relationship he must have longed for was God's.
Second, we are told that God created Adam in His own image. The question to be asked then is what is god's image? Paul answerd that in 2 corinthians 4:4 when he said Christ is the image of God -lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, In order words, the image of God that He planned to replicate in man was Christ and Christ is represented only in marriage when there is a union of a male and a female. Why do you think the devil is attacking marrigae so much these days? That is the spirit of the anti-Christ at work fighting against everything that represents the Christ.

[Sigh!!]  TayoD, this is a hard saying, who can understand it?  I guess I have to think it over.

@TV01

What a character you are!  I guess you are still going over those scriptures (in various translations) posted earlier?  

Love.