₦airaland Forum

@sage,

sage:
If Jesus felt women had presiding duties he would have assigned them that

Remember that the Church did not exist until Acts 2; so if the NT precedence for HELPS and GOVERNMENTS (I Cor. 12:28) came after the resurrection and ascension of Christ, we can well understand that such deals with Church Life.

sage:
Well by asking those questions that i did illustrating Biblical precedents maybe, just maybe i am the one beign Chauvunistic, sexist, narrow minded bigot.

Now, now. . bros. I didn't quite mean it like that on your person. No vex.    Remember I included myself in that as well until I began to challenge my previously held chauvinistic views?

But like you said, everyone is entitled to their opinions. God bless you plenty. 

I'm still wondering about the many "thou shalt not" of Islam for women.

1. Thou shalt not - - DRIVE

2. Thou shalt not  - - PLAY FOOTBALL

3. Thou shalt not  - - GO OUTSIDE YOUR HOME ON YOUR OWN _{unless a male relative accompanies you}

4. Thou shalt not  - -  PLAY TENNIS WITH A JEW

5. Thou shalt not  - - MARRY A CHRISTIAN _{even if the muslim men can marry Christian ladies}

etc.


But all's not lost hope. Because there seem to be a few positive THOU SHALT DOs as well:

1. Thou shalt - - SUCKLE A MALE WORKER

2. Thou shalt - - BE AMONG THE 72 VIRGINS AS REWARD TO  A "PEACEFUL" JIHADIST _{especially the ferocious ones}

3. Thou shalt - - BE A "TILT" UNTO YOUR HUSBAND _{if you refuse, the angels will CURSE you until morning!}

4. Thou shalt - BE TAKEN TO _ _ _ _ BY AN IRREVOCABLE DECREE _{remember Sura 19:71?}


Can't remember many in the second list - probably because the forbidden things are weightier than the permitted things. 

Exactly. If only he know that the coveted "72V" may be in scarce supply if he attempts exercise.

The one thing that i'd like to ask is:

Since we know that death is described as 'rest' and 'sleep', does that not clearly demonstrate that the soul does not become non-existent at death?

davidylan:
no cease fire until she suckles me.

I can now understand why the Islamic scholar's fatwa is a powerful evengelistic tool! Even you don nearly convert!

davidylan:
maybe they got tired of endless days of "peaceful" raging.

Woosai? They never get tired of keeping the "peace". While you and I are sitting on our PCs, another generation is being silently prepared to carry on the "peace" - there's no end to the reward of the choice 72 "V"s!!

https://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/Pictures/pal-child-abuse-62.jpg

https://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/Pictures/pal-child-abuse-60.jpg

sage:
If people say they base what they are saying on the bible, then let it be the bible and in that case its quite diffrerent from people stating personal opinions

I hope you can see that the quotes have not been taken from magazines or other sources to point you back to the Bible?

ThiefOfHearts:
Dude you are answering a question with a question. Berra answer me, jare

You're wasting your time - join the party! No be today oga sage dey circumvent questions!

@sage,

sage:
If Biblical precedent does not count, Jesus example does not count, and the example of First century Christianity which clearly had God's blessings does not count then we might go ahead and nd this discussion here.

Dude, you're the one person sobbing on your own. Who ever said the Biblical precedence does not count? The one thing you've been trying to do is narrow that precedence to your chauvinistic world and make the Bible subject to it.

sage:
REMEMBER JESUS CALLED PEOPLE TO BE HIS FOLLOWERS , AND IN ALL THE DISCUSSIONS IVE HAD WITH YOU, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING THAT

Doing what? My one consistent discussion with you is the appeal that you open your eyes and recognize the indispensable roles that God has called WOMEN to play in the Body of Christ according to the same Bible where you cop out your selective reading.

@sage,

I'm not surprised that you've come back in your characteristic equivocation of tendering questions where you've refused to answer those offered you? I left you three questions previously; but then I'll oblige you yours:

sage:
Was God and Jesus discriminatory, sexist, causing divisions and class, racisct, Chauvunistic etc When

1. God apointed only males to serve as priests

2 only males to serve as Levites (Only a certain designated tribe. What made this tribe more qualified than others?)

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

Neither God nor Christ were being "discriminatory", if that's how you deliberately want to read it. You have failed to observe the dichotomy between OT and NT worship styles; and that is the one huge problem you'd need to settle for yourself before anything else.

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

Are you deliberately forgetting the case of Deborah the prophetess (Judg. 4:4-5)? The Bible says that "she judged Israel at that time"; and also that "the children of Israel came up to her for judgment". She was definitely a leader over the nation of Israel - which is why again and again I've asked that you kindly broaden your perspective and see that WOMEN were also leaders over God's people.

sage:
5 When he selected a certain group of people to be a choosen people

From the very beginning He had pronounced that His salvation would reach the ends of the earth (Gen. 18:18 ). He was not being "discriminatory" as you assumed.

sage:
NOW THIS IS THE BIG PART

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

Christianity did not end at the last chapter of the Gospel of John. The same Jesus Christ chose others besides the Twelve to be apostles - as we read in Eph. 4:9-12. What is important to note here is that there were women who were noted among the apostles (Rom. 16:7). Although many people argue against the latter case as to whether the names there are feminine or masculine; yet we cannot discount the fact that women were also chosen to be leaders in the Body of Christ, as I have demonstrated earlier.

sage:
7 Only males took leadership decisions in the first century christian congregation in matters of worship, even though the women who had faithfully followed Jesus and other righteous women were there?

In the formulative years of the Church, there were issues that were still strongly held as carry-overs from Judaism. But as the testimony matured, we recognize that the apostle Paul noted that women were not to be discriminated against in this same matter of decision-making in the affairs of the Church. Please refer to my earlier rejoinder where I outlined that "HELPS" and "GOVERNMENTS" are not the exclusive preserve of men - for women were also in view of such gifts there (I Cor. 12:28 ).

sage:
8 The holy spirit inspired Paul to admonish Christian women in Timothy and in Corinthians

It is the same Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to recognize that women also could be teachers as well unto other women - a ministry which CANNOT be precided over by men:

"The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed" -- (Titus 2:3-4)

Can you see that the call for a men-only leadership in Church is actually not what is taught in the Bible? Women also have leadership roles to play in Church; and the sooner men begin to realize this, the better it serves the Body of Christ!  

I'm just wondering one about this one nowadays. Most people seem to base the durability of their relationships more on the question of whether or not their partners could 'satisfy' them in bed.

Is that the big decider for a relationship to move forward?

"Why They Left The 'Religion Of Peace'"?

Maybe to enjoy some fresh air from the burka?

https://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_evil/images/extreme_hijab_1.jpg

For most who would be reading this today, tomorrow is another Sunday. Remember the word in Hebrews. 10:23-25 --

Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering;
(for he is faithful that promised

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is;
but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.


God bless all.

sage:
When it comes to biblical matters, even if a person does not agree wit a particular thing, the person should not try to twist it to accomodate other things

Please mark that and apply it to the rejoinders you make.

Lol @mrpataki. . . that must have been a typo (it happens to me as well). But that verse is supposed to be 71 and not 17!

The number 71 is only 1 less than the reward of 72 virgins;

. . . while 17 is only 1 more than marrying 4 wives 4 times (amounting to 4 x 4 = 16) according to the injunction of Islam!! 

@sage,

You're rather missing the point. LOL.

NT worship is not a continuum of OT worship style.

In the OT, there were only male priests.

In the NT, BOTH men and women are priests!

olutomiwa:
CEASE FIRE AND REACH OUT FOR A HANDSHAKE

>Sigh!<

See what suckling has led to? 

@sage,

Please amuse me more.    Why is Acts 2:17 such a pitchfork to you?  How did apostle Peter apply the prophecy of Joel 2??

    "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" - Acts 2:16.

Was Peter confining the outpouring of the Spirit to only the MEN of Israel? Please take a second look:

    "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off,
    even as many as the Lord our God shall call." (vs. 37)

Now, dear sage, was the promise in Joel 2 which was fulfilled in Acts 2 strictly for Jewish men ONLY? Did it not include the Gentiles also as many as God Himself would call??

Secondly, have you taken a look at what is called leadership in Church? You're dreaming of a M.A.N.-only church were women are supposed to just shut up even if God Himself has given them His Spirit to both pray and prophesy!

The Bible does not present a chauvinistic world to Christians; and it would be helpful that you try and enlarge your heart to see what is stated in the Word.

@gbade. x,

I don't have a preference per se; as long as she doesn't remind me of mammy-water!

@sage,

Instead of your repeated childish rants, why don't you please look into God's Word and offer what you can discover about women's leadership roles in Church? At least I've offered you some; and you didn't have anything to say thereto than your chauvinistic comeback which hasn't proved anything.

This is what informed my continued debate in this thread from the post of the originator:

The point is can you submit to the spiritual authority of a female leader? Let's keep chatting.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.32.html#msg1235901

If I could just bring this question round and simplify it this way:

Does the Bible reveal that WOMEN can be leaders with spiritual authority in Church?

For the most part, some are persuaded that women should not be considered leaders at all in spiritual matters. That being so, and because I'm opposed to that kind of mentality, my posts are challenging the default male-chauvinism that refuse to re-consider what God has said concerning women in Church. Rather than assume the male-ego campaign, could we just calm down and look again into the Word in order to discover/rediscover what GOD Himself has taught there on this subject?

You're alleging that I'm twisting Acts 2:17; but what do you have to say to what I've pointed out thereto? Your childish rants alleging that my arguments are empty is a bit old fashioned now; and if you don't know what women are called to do in Church, you could as well re-write your own bible.

Now go through the points I offered in my previous rejoinder; and then try to seek answers to the following questions:


"For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted"
-- I Cor. 14:31
a) was the apostle Paul addressing only men in this verse?


"That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands,
to love their children"  --  Tit. 2:4
b) was the apostle Paul addressing this verse for only men as well?


"And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount
Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment." -- Judg. 4:4-5.
c) was Deborah playing the role of a leader over the entire nation of Israel of not?

Oga sage, please save the childish rants and calmly look at what those verses are saying. If anything at all, they're not saying that leadership among God's people was the exclusive preserve of the men-only world!!

@TV01,

TV01:
I'm not sure what it is that you mean? But here's what I'm asking/saying.

It's fine if someone feels they have something to submit which contributors have hitherto failed to consider or been aware of. It's also fine to advise the themes and areas to be contained within the proposed submission.  But I'm not sure that one can ask for a consensus or try and hold a referendum prior to doing so.

All I said in my post was we are eagerly waiting your submission. Don't wait for all and sundry to comment before you do so, as;

If "all" you had wanted to say was that you were waiting his submission, you ought to have simply done so. Your tone did not indicate that you were waiting; thus, my concern for the sly invectives.

TV01:
1. You'll never know if all and sundry have commented or even desire too.
2. It makes it sound like an open ended exercise, especially in the absence of a cut-off date.

I'm not aware that there is now a cut-off date for posting on the Forum. Who made one? There have been times when people (including you) have been quite occupied and could not have been able to follow debates on some threads (at least, I know this happens to me in some instances).

TV01:
3. The nature of a forum like this lends itself to continuous input and the discussion is ongoing.
4. So no matter how raw or incomplete a submission it is refined in the course of discussion.

I observe that he has been discussing; as well raising points, offering counter points to correct default opinions previously held by some.

TV01:
All I'm asking/saying is "please post and lets talk".

If it had been stated that simply, I wouldn't have had to raise my concerns.

TV01:
That is my point, it's unlikely that anyone will, as thats not how the discussion flows.

People have different approaches to issues.

TV01:
Post first and objections, agreements, posers, counters and ripostes will follow. It sounds like Bari_Kade is asking for rejoinders prior to posting. It's counter-intuitive to how public posting discussion forums work?

Not at all, unless you wanted to read him so. He raised issues, referred to others as informing his persuasions (4get_me, syrup, et al); and noted that he was not interested in recasting what has already been offered previously. Thus, he went on to outline his concerns and offered that if anyone had issues that were of counter concern to his outlines, they could raise them. What was the point of the invectives if he even went so far to appeal that he was working on his draft, going through the over 930 posts on this thread and asking that you guys be patient with him?

TV01:
As to points others have made against tithing (and please be mindful of the nuances), Bari_Kade has not debunked them, only denounced and denied them.

If you are particular about nuances, I should remind you that he had debunked some default ideas. I don't read anyone offering counter points to issues he debunked. What about the fact that he stated clearly from Scripture that the Church does not replace Israel? And the fact that tithes were not limited to just agricultural produce?

If he was only denying them, would it not have been the simplest thing to do for you guys to have pointed him to Scripture to show how wrong he was? Nope, he did not "deny" points, but first had to deal with the same default issues being held by some before offering an idea of what he would be dealing with.

TV01:
It's saying not showing. Claiming not explianing. Bari_Kade has now offered to show, so all we are asking is "please show".

Please, go read them again. He explained and indeed showed what he was about. And if you have patience enough without the idea of a cut-off time (which is new on me), then perhaps he would do so eventually.

TV01:
Please, that's facile at best, and in any event, a charge that can be levelled against anyone.

Rubbish. Anyone can level any charge at anyone they so wish - and I stated clearly why I left the debate for a while.

TV01:
Whilst not denying that some passion has been shown, this thread has been as focused as any. Furthermore, a pertinent posting will serve to focus us all the more.

Was it too much to ask that the so-called "passion" (please read 'slobbers' - according to bari_kade) be laid aside and we look into Scripture on the subject?

TV01:
So once again, please post promised submission and lets discuss.

Great. I'm sure he would do so when he is ready; and I also indicated that previously:

I'm one of those waiting expectantly for bari_kade's interesting highlights;

@donnie,

I'm NOT a hero-worshipper. And I don't try to criticize Chris Oyakhilome for what I don't know about him; nor yet try to praise him for what I really don't know about him either.

If any Christ-Embassy hero-worshipper wants to "correct such an act" of what you call criticizng the man of God, let them do so without playing God as to condemn others as "probably not born again".

naijacutee:
E.g A course on home-made bombs made simple

Lol. . . better home-made bombs than kick football on the pitch (the concensus of the Muslim clerics!)

@onyex,

Well, I've no problem balancing the functions of the brain. However, it seems that there are two opposite claims you're making. On the one hand, you stated earlier that one is not to use a part (intellect) of the brain; now on the other hand, you're making a direct opposite claim to that. Let me outline them:

#A. (in other words), USE it:

onyex:
The message did not say you shouldnt use a part of your brain.

#B. (on the contrary), Do NOT use it:

1.

onyex:
Our intellect is our frontal brain.

source: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-58742.0.html#msg1223691

2.

onyex:
Using our intellect is not good because it is earthly.

source: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-58742.0.html#msg1221365

3.

onyex:
We are meant to use our intuition not our intellect. We are not meant to use it because it is bound by space and time and is unconnected with the spiritual.

source: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-58742.0.html#msg1223691


See my concerns?

[quote author=n-guage link=topic=62489.msg1250614#msg1250614 date=1183168095]davidylan and all this older nairaland members love to feel superior. I don't get inolved with them[/quote]Is this a terse reminder of an inferiority complex on your part?

TayoD:
Adam without the woman represntated and occupied the adamic office as Jesus, while Adam with the Woman represents the Christ!

Wow! This one is new on me. Could you explicate more on the distinction?

On the other hand, while appreciating the Muslim call for decency, I think they should be willing to allow their brethren to enjoy sports. Perhaps, one reason why Muslims discountenance sports is the indescent exposure of women in the name of games!!


Is this why they detest America (and probably think this is a "Christian" thing)?

   https://www.ridingsun.com/files/ridingsun-lingerieBowlFridge.JPG


As Christians, we also detest the indescent exposure in the name of "sports" - but then, Christianity does not preach against enjoying sports:

1Ti 4:8 -- "For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come."

Photoshots

This is how muslimahs settle a rough football brush:

https://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/kick.jpg



But surely they can play in the Islamic Women's Rugby:

https://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060622IranRugby01.jpg


. . . and surely football too!

https://english.people.com.cn/200604/30/images/IWF2.jpg

Let's Enjoy The i-Sport of the PR (pieceful religion)


Bulletin

Offside!

https://img187.imageshack.us/img187/3211/footballerfzw2.png

'Football and the repression of women in Iran are the themes of Jafar Panahi's subversive film "Offside", which won a prestigious Silver Bear at the Berlin Film Festival last month. Six female football fans are arrested after smuggling themselves, dressed as men, into the all-male world of Teheran's Azadi stadium. The women are then placed in the custody of two conservative-minded conscripts as the country's most important game takes place within earshot but out of view. All the characters are united in their desire for Iran to defeat Bahrain and qualify for the World Cup in Germany but divided in their vision for the future of the country. Panahi's film has been sold to 18 countries but it's unlikely that it will ever be shown in Iran.'

Source: http://www.eamonn.com/2006/03/world_cup_watch_6.htm



Whistle Blown of Women Footballers:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1265000/images/_1267290_ap300tackle.jpg

"A row has erupted in Kuwait over a women's football tournament due to take place on Monday, organised by Kuwait University and a number of women's unions. The head of the Muslim Brotherhood, Abdullah al-Mutawa, has called for it to be cancelled saying it was a disobedience to God for women to take part in such activities."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1267290.stm

davidylan:
Why are they enraged even though they do so "peacefully"? Is Mirza public property?

Let's see some reasons WHY sports does not contribute to "Islamic peace" --

- - - - - - - - -

Saudi clerics declare football un-Islamic

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: Ulema in Saudia Arabia have issued a fatwa (religious decree) declaring football an un-Islamic sport, and have urged the youth to quit it immediately, BBC radio reported on Saturday.

According to the report, the clerics urged the youth to indulge in jihad and other constructive activities that could help the Muslim ummah, the radio reported. The ulema argued that football wastes a lot of time and the participants wear shorts, which they said was an un-Islamic dress, the radio reported.

Following the decree, some players of the famous Taif Football Club have quit the game, the report added.

Source: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-8-2005_pg7_8

@sage,

sage:
This is an EMPTY ARGUMENT

In Ancient Israel, there were also women who were gifted with prophesy just like their male counterparts

BUT THEY COULD NOT PRESIDE OR TAKE A LEADERSHIP ROLE IN THE WORSHIP OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD.

What you call an empty argument speaks more to your own posts than any other. Instead of being so narrow in your cut-and-dry rules for the chauvinism of male exclusivity, would it hurt you at all to take a moment and re-consider what God's Word says on this very subject?

Let me leave you a few pointers on some aspects of the roles women play in the life of the Church:


WOMEN are also PRIESTS in the NT

a) Women are also priests together with the men in the NT. In the OT, no woman was selected to participate in the Levitical priesthood. However, since Christians derive their priesthood from that which the Lord Jesus Christ exercises (after the order of Melchizedek), God has called both men and women to be priests in worship - I Pet. 2:5 & 9.

Infact, when you go back to the OT worship you will find a woman leading worship! "And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea" (Exo. 15:20-21). She may not have been a teacher or apostle or pastor or evangelist; but she definitely was called a PROPHETESS!!


WOMEN are also to PROPHESY in CHURCH

b) Since you're so caught up in the rigid traditions of chauvinistic mentality, would it hurt to ask again about why God would have poured out His Spirit on both the men and women He called in the fellowship of His Son? Let me remind you again:

     "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon
     all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall
     see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams" (Acts 2:17).

Why would God be asking women to "shut up" if He gave them the Spirit to prophesy in the first place? He clearly meant for women to prophesy as do the men; however, He clearly laid down divine principles for women to recognize His divine order so they do not usurp authority over the men.

Now, let me be a bit clearer about this. In I Corinthians 11, the apostle Paul recognized the that women can also PRAY and PROPHESY in church:

      "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the
      ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 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. ^AEvery man praying or prophesying, having his head covered,
      dishonoureth his head. But ^Bevery woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head
      uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."
      -- I Cor. 11:2-5

     "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."
      -- I Cor. 14:31.

Excuse me, mr sage, does the Bible say that only men may prophesy in Church? Does the Bible say that only men may pray in Church? Were the "ordinances" in I Cor. 11:2 made for only men in Church?

How is it that we have so narrowed our ideas to a male-only world and refused for decades to see what roles women play in Church Life? The one thing women were asked to not do is TEACH in church. But it did not say that they could not PRAY or PROPHESY in Church!!


WOMEN could also be leaders in HELPS and GOVERNMENTS in Church

c) In the ministry of the Spirit, believers are given various gifts according to I Cor. 12; and not everyone receives the same type of gifts. "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." (vs. 4). However, those men who believe that women are simply to be seen but not heard in the life of the Church ought to carefully consider what is written in verse 27: "And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness."

Following on from there, the apostle made it clear that: "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" (vs. 28 ).

It may surprise most of us caught in the rigid world of men-only mentality; but do you know that in the life of the Church, women have prayed and people have been healed? Do we realize that women also speak in tongues? Then what is the problem recognizing that WOMEN also were called to participate in the ministry of HELPS and GOVERNMENT? Do we realize that women often times make for remarkable administrators in governmental matters of the Church? I'm not joking, but I've seen women who have proven to be far better managers and administrators than most men in Church life - and yes, most of these women I know are not noise makers!

Now look again and ask yourself why Paul would make mention of the women who laboured alongside with him in a positive way: "And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life" (Php. 4:3).

The same Paul recognized that it is women who make a better job at TEACHING other women: "The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children" (Tit. 2:3-4).


The problem with this beggarly male chauvinism is that it has refused to re-consider what exactly God has said about the women! And my point has been once and again:

[quote author=stimulus link=topic=61492.msg1248945#msg1248945 date=1183119740]
Perhaps it might be more helpful to appreciate the roles played by women in the Church; rather than just simply relegating them to a black hole mentality as if they were meant to exist and never be heard.

What roles do women play in Church? Women may not have been among the priesthood of the OT; but they are undeniably included in the priesthood of all Christian believers in the NT (I Pet. 2:5 & 9).[/quote]Mr. sage, I hope by now you can understand where I'm coming from so that you don't simply write off the core issues of the concerns being raised here.

Men are leaders in Church, no doubt. But is leadership in Church an exclusive preserve for ONLY MEN? What does God's Word show us instead, especially in regards to the indispensable ministry that WOMEN are called to betake in the Body of Christ?

Cheers.

@sage,

sage:
You are not the first one to question the God's divine arraingment when it comes to arraingment for leadership in worship.

It is least surprising that you of all people would have said that, because you have refused to open your eyes to read the gist of my posts. Since you're so driven by your chauvinistic world, please set your male-pride aside for a moment and understand that I am NOT questioning God's divine arrangement in leadership in the Church. If anything at all, my point is clear and as consistent as can be:
[quote author=stimulus link=topic=61492.msg1250128#msg1250128 date=1183157065]
The second thing is that women in leadership are not to usurp authority over the men. However, there should be a balance rather than a polarization towards just the men.[/quote]Does that sound like questioning God's divine order of leadership for His Church? Mr. sage, let me call your attention to a few serious matters that you have failed to consider:

sage:
2 Kings in ancient Israel played a pivotal role in leading the nation in pure worship and that role was specifically reserved for males.

Dear sir, please go back to the OT and see that God specifically chose WOMEN to lead the nation of Israel in very crucial matters of their existence! Let me give you one example:

"And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount
Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment." -- Judg. 4:4-5.

Does that sound like leadership or not? What do you understand by leadership - is that something that is so narrow that you fail to see that it applies to both men and women in the collective life of God's people?

Please set your male-pride aside for once and look into Scripture and see that God has specifically called both the men and women in the Body of Christ and clearly outlined roles for them. My one argument has been that women are specifically asked to not teach or usurp authority over the men in the Church. However, that does not mean at all the women did not have leadership positions in the Church.