₦airaland Forum

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

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

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

lafile:
I have always based my decision to tithe on Luke 11:42 "But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

During Jesus' lifetime, the law was still in effect. His whole work of salvation hinged on his totally fulfilling the law while alive. He was addressing a Jew, a Pharisee, who was stilll bound by the law. To tell him to break the law would have practically aborted His whole mission.

What The Lord did, was to go beyond the letter of the law, to show the intent of the law. Indeed, in Christ, there is more, a further stage.

You are niether Jewish, a Pharisee nor bound by the law. Christ has since died, and Allelujah, He is risen. Law-based tithing is one of those things now "taken out of the way", "nailed to the cross". My brother, enjoy your liberty in Christ.

lafile:
but I'ld rather tithe.

And I won't seek to deny you the liberty to do so.

God bless
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

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

@ Stimulus, we are still eagerly awaiting you reply, be that rebuttal, concurrence or deviation.

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

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

@ 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

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:
@TV01,

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

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

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

God bless
TV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or this

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

Or this

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

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

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

Which harkens back to these OT insights

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

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

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


God bless
TV

omowhyou:
Don't allow people to confuse you Tithe is good for you, there are lot of blessing attached to it.

Namely?

omowhyou:
It doesn't matter whether it's not in the new testament,

Ah, Pastor it's you !

omowhyou:
what is important is that God said we should pay tithe to him.

When, where, how?

Analytical has chided me about vituperations, so I'll chill for now.  Nonsense & Ingreedent  !

Okay, sorry !

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

Bro’ Stimulus;

Please, I beg;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop cross-dressing masquerading and camouflaging

Stop the sleight of hand and street corner card tricks

Stop using smoke and mirrors

And please answer the question.

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

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

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

God bless
TV

stimulus:
Thank you, TV01. If you refuse to see where I've tried to answer your questions, there would be no need for the above. You can do him a good turn in answering them rather than failing to do so yourself.

Ok, sorry !

lafile:
I will like to ask this question: What is the Tithe as it relates to the New Testament Christian.

Tithing can be on one of two premises, mandatory or voluntarily

Mandatory
1. There is no scriptural command obliging tithe for new testament Christians.
2. NT Christians simply give. Giving is a grace and part of the Christian life.

Voluntary
1. Is at best an individual thing, and
2. There is nothing in scripture to suggest it will accrue benefits or blessings that are denied those who simply give.

lafile:
and if the figure is not fixed what separates it from any other voluntary giving?

Good question , which has a very simple one word answer ~ Nothing! Any notion of a tithe or any type of law-bound or ritual giving has been subsumed by grace. As I said, Christinas "simply give". Freely and from the heart. True liberty in Christ. Please don't let anyone rob you of that.

Oya Stimulus, please answer Bro Lafile (unequivocally if you will !). Or my answers if you disagree on any point

God bless
TV

@ Lafile,

Please don't be upset that Stimulus did not answer your posers. Only he rarely does.

@ Sagacious

I would ask that you share the insights gleaned from your study.

God bless
TV

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

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

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

3. What do you mean by the above?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salvation and service are not to be confused - and service actually indicates some connection with leadership. How? Would not I Cor. 12:28 help us a little here  --  "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."??

Are apostles leaders? If not, would it not suggest that they had no authority but were merely gifts? Remember what you said earlier: "Leadership is ministry" - would that also apply here??

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

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

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

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

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

God bless
TV

Hi TayoD,

Asides aside, lets resume the discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless
TV

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

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

@ Stimulus;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless
TV

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

stimulus:
That's just why I am persuaded that many people have their own persuasions on this matter: many seeing it as a "command"

In many instances, the persuasions of many are determined by the preaching of a few!

stimulus:
Et moi? Well, yes I tithe - I do so. But then, I don't see it as a command (or I should say, I've not come to the persuasion that it is a command even though I'm persuaded to tithe).

Command or not. Seems you are not sure?

stimulus:
Second thing though, is that I also believe as does REZIGIRL that some blessings are attached to tithing - that's why I offered that short response earlier to link you to another one given earlier.

Please explain what blessings are attached to tithing/tithers, that are not accrued to giving/givers? Please show a clear distinction between them. Do said distinctions hold if the givers give less, the same or more? Anyone.

stimulus:
Biblically, TV01, you can see why I don't really think this is the way this discussion should be ajudged. Infact, if those were the reasons for giving or not, I would really NOT even give any other type of financial giving/offering.

I'm only just trying to offer you examples of why I didn't want to discuss this subject along the lines of the reasons above. I'm more concerned with what exactly we can learn from God's Word on any type of GIVING at all.Regards.

I agree that doctrinally, the use of offerings is not the starting point, but the how, when and why. However, the discussion would not be complete if we did not go on to discuss how tithe offering, giving or money in it's totality was to be used in the Christian living. Regardless of peoples prejudices or experience.

stimulus:
Yes, I believe in tithing - and I've been enjoying God's blessings thereto. But my persuasions are somewhat different from the idea that it is a command or that I should not give anything in church for fear of what any pastor does with my offering. God bless all.

Your belief is not supported by scripture and your testimony is at best anecdotal. This is not a discussion about giving, as you clearly distinguish tithing from giving.

If you agree that any notion of tithing  on whatever basis has been subsumed into the Christian grace of giving, then the whole discussion is mute. As long as you insist there is tithing distinct from giving, with benefits accrued thereto, you should be able to explain and expand on that position scripturally. As yet, no one has done so.

If some of us give by grace freely from the heart and are missing blessings from tithing, why would you for loves sake not enlighten us? If it's by grace we should avail ourselves and if it's by command, we should obey.

You claim to not be persuaded that tithing is a command, but persuaded to do so. Please explain why? It suggests your position to be one taken out of doubt or fear.

God bless
TV

@ Stimulus;


Back as promised

You wrote;
The verses you offered for qualifications for male leadership roles by no means nullify the complementary leadership roles for women according to Ephesians 4.

My point, I repeat, has been about:

     (a) recognizing that women have leadership roles in the Body of Christ

     (b) maintaining a balance by recognizing such leadership roles

     (c) understanding leadership as a joint exercise where men and women partner together.

The one problem that you have to deal with is the idea you bring up as to "overall leadership/authority" being ascribed exclusively to men - and that idea is not even suggested by the verses you offered.

My response
If you mean complimentary as in equal in authority, then yes they do. For a start, there are no similar or equivalent qualifications for women outlined anywhere in the NT and those quoted are indisputably referring to men. In response to the points, in turn;

(a) Ministry roles yes, leadership roles, again yes, but in acknowledgment that men have seniority in leadership, as evidenced by the gender qualification for eldership.
(b) Balance maybe, but equality or neutrality, no way.
(c) Jointly maybe, equal, no. Partners no problem, equal partners no.

You wrote;
The one problem that you have to deal with is the idea you bring up as to "overall leadership/authority" being ascribed exclusively to men - and that idea is not even suggested by the verses you offered.

My response;
It absolutely is. Eldership is gender based. Exclusive to males.

You wrote;
As for balance, let me offer you again something out of Titus from which book you quoted:

  (a) male leadership offered in Titus 1:9 -
        'holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able,
        by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.'

  (b) female leadership offered in Titus 2:3 -
       'The aged women likewise, that they be . . .teachers of good things"

My response;

I quote in full.

1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things-- 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands,

As you can plainly see and have obviously been misapplying, the verses speak to older brethren both male and female who do not actually hold office, but by dint of their age should be examples.

It clearly shows that older females are expected to engage in a ministry of teaching to younger women. End of story.

Like I have said repeatedly, if you want to ascribe “leadership” to these older women, fine, but it is still subject to the ministry of eldership, which is the preserve of suitably qualified, mature males.

That particular plank of your argument is quite feeble and in fact is the only NT verse you have provided to buttress your position. Not a supporting plank, more like one you should walk  !

Once again, the NT does not support women as Church elders. That they are called to minister, that they have gifts, that their roles are equally important, that they are indispensable to the fullness of home and church life is not in dispute. But they are not called to eldership.

You wrote;
Just that one example for now.

Question: Do men teach? Yes they do.

                 Do women teach as well? Yes they do.

The issue (as has been repeatedly stated) is that the scope of leadership exercised by women is defined by two things:

         i. she is not permitted to "teach" (in which a study of the word there is simply that she is not to assume to be "master" - James 3:1) in the churches;

        ii. she is not to usurp authority over the man (not to be "masters" over men).

But is that saying she is not to teach at all? NO.

Is that also saying she has no leadership role? NO.

My response;
A poor example, especially as it is based on your weak plank above. The area of women teaching is clearly defined. Likewise is the area (over the full/public congregation) they are not. Your colourful exegesis of James 3:1 does not help you either. All can teach, everyone can, but at levels. And at the full congregational level, only Elders, and then not even all elders do or should.

I suggest you swop you “leadership capacity” phrase for “ministry role”. You are doing women a bigger disservice and playing to the gallery. At once suggesting they are leaders in equality with men, whilst at the same time noting that they can’t usurp authority or teach at all levels. More “neither fish nor fowl” theology.

And please stop Trying to use 1 Corinthians 11:11 to validate your case, it doesn’t. It reads from verse one, which indubitably shows the headship of male over female, but notes the complimentriness of the gender relationship.

Again, at best that can suggest “Complimentary leadership”, but not “Equal Leadership”

As for you dislike of the “overall leadership” distinction I make, I have repeatedly said the head of the Church is Christ. But a certain amount of authority is devolved within the body as a whole and a modicum with the plural male eldership.

So far you have two non-binding (one disputable and one aberrant) OT examples and nothing from the NT. In all the years of history, considering all the types and examples, reading the whole of the scriptural narrative, can you honestly say you see a pattern of co-equal or gender-neutral leadership?

God bless
TV

@ Stimulus,

Okay, I hear. Do I tithe? Yes, I do. No shakings from my rejoinder above.

To all intents and purposes, I feel the doctrinal aspects of this discussion have been nailed. However, I would like to ask you some questions.

1. Do you believe tithing affords you blessings not accrued to one who simply gives, be that less, the same or more than you?

2. Additionally, do you think it denotes greater maturity or a closer walk with the Lord?

3. If you answer yes to any of the above 2 questions, please explain how you understand God as distinguishing between tithing and giving? If indeed they are both voluntary


I'd like to move on to the pratical application and use of the tithe and possibly the whole use of money in NT Christianity, if of course anyone cares to discuss.

God bless
TV

@ Stimulus;

I will respond to your rejoinders as soon as I am able, for now, note that Women only rule in the absence of capable willing men. Anything else suggests a breakdown, as was the case during the time of the judges. When women rule, things are grave.

After reviewing your post prior, I accept that Deborah judged Israel with all the authority of the other Judges, noting 2 things;

1. Like I have consitently maintained, OT paradigms are not templates for NT living.
2. The abberational nature of those times as I outlined them.

Isaiah 3

1 For behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, Takes away from Jerusalem and from Judah The stock and the store, The whole supply of bread and the whole supply of water; 2 The mighty man and the man of war, The judge and the prophet, And the diviner and the elder; 3 The captain of fifty and the honorable man, The counselor and the skillful artisan, And the expert enchanter. 4 "I will give children to be their princes, And babes shall rule over them. 5 The people will be oppressed, Every one by another and every one by his neighbor; The child will be insolent toward the elder, And the base toward the honorable." 6 When a man takes hold of his brother In the house of his father, saying, "You have clothing; You be our ruler, And let these ruins be under your power," F3 7 In that day he will protest, saying, "I cannot cure your ills, For in my house is neither food nor clothing; Do not make me a ruler of the people." 8 For Jerusalem stumbled, And Judah is fallen, Because their tongue and their doings Are against the Lord, To provoke the eyes of His glory. 9 The look on their countenance witnesses against them, And they declare their sin as Sodom; They do not hide it. Woe to their soul! For they have brought evil upon themselves. 10 "Say to the righteous that it shall be well with them, For they shall eat the fruit of their doings. 11 Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him, For the reward of his hands shall be given him. 12 As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths." 13 The Lord stands up to plead, And stands to judge the people. 14 The Lord will enter into judgment With the elders of His people And His princes: "For you have eaten up the vineyard; The plunder of the poor is in your houses. 15 What do you mean by crushing My people And grinding the faces of the poor?" Says the Lord God of hosts.

Back soon

God bless
TV

@Stimulus,

Please say how the following scripture allows for women to act as elders over the flock of God and as equals or in partnership with men;

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

Or this

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

Or this

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


God bless
TV

@ Stimulus

In Exodus 3-4 (apologies for the earlier erroneous ref to Genesis), Moses was called and Aaron sent with him. Pray tell, was Miriam to be “like God” as Moses was? Was even Aaron equal in calling with Moses? The fact that Miriam played a prominent role did not mean she was commissioned with them.

I gave a new testament example of her wife and her husband. What has Deborah got to do with this? OT indicators are not binding on NT believers. And Deborah was not the leader of Israel. The judges were sent/appointed by God as deliverers. After the death of Joshua and the generations who witnessed his leadership, society had broken down and every man did what was right in his own sight.

Joshua 21:24 So the children of Israel departed from there at that time, every man to his tribe and family; they went out from there, every man to his inheritance. 25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

This was prior to the era of the judges, who were raised for deliverance.

Judges 2:7 So the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the Lord which He had done for Israel. 8 Now Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died when he was one hundred and ten years old. 9 And they buried him within the border of his inheritance at Timnath Heres, in the mountains of Ephraim, on the north side of Mount Gaash. 10 When all that generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who did not know the Lord nor the work which He had done for Israel. 11 Then the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served the Baals; 12 and they forsook the Lord God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt; and they followed other gods from among the gods of the people who were all around them, and they bowed down to them; and they provoked the Lord to anger. 13 They forsook the Lord and served Baal and the Ashtoreths. F6 14 And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel. So He delivered them into the hands of plunderers who despoiled them; and He sold them into the hands of their enemies all around, so that they could no longer stand before their enemies. 15 Wherever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them for calamity, as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn to them. And they were greatly distressed. 16 Nevertheless, the Lord raised up judges who delivered them out of the hand of those who plundered them. 17 Yet they would not listen to their judges, but they played the harlot with other gods, and bowed down to them. They turned quickly from the way in which their fathers walked, in obeying the commandments of the Lord; they did not do so. 18 And when the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed them and harassed them. 19 And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they reverted and behaved more corruptly than their fathers, by following other gods, to serve them and bow down to them. They did not cease from their own doings nor from their stubborn way. 20 Then the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel; and He said, "Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, 21 I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, 22 so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the Lord, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not." 23 Therefore the Lord left those nations, without driving them out immediately; nor did He deliver them into the hand of Joshua.

Here is Deborah’s introduction.

5 And she would sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. And the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

They came to her, that does not denote authority over them. They approached her for sound counsel, as an obviously Godly person.

Given the backdrop of a breakdown in civil society and religious structures at that time, why are you trying to use it to underpin a whole doctrine for Church life?

Listen, God is sovereign, would I answer back? He can gift, choose and use whomsoever he pleases. In this time of meltdown He did.

But why do you insist it is a template for NT Christians? Like I have repeatedly said if men repudiate their responsibility, should women just “siddon look”? Or is God bound/limited by irresponsible men?

In the whole of the OT and likewise the NT, there are each two hotly contested, highly debatable instances of women in leadership (not necessarily overall). On the basis of this you claim, gender neutrality in terms of authority and leadership (in the church at least) is the scriptural imperative?

And please, this

I Cor. 11:11 -

"Nevertheless

neither is the man without the woman,

neither the woman without the man,

in the Lord."

Is a follow on from 1 Cor 11:3, it speaks to the complimentary nature of the male and female in creational terms and the family/home setting. Not gender equality or neutrality and not primarily a congregational pointer.

God bless
TV

@ Stimulus,

First, I have repeatedly said, that eldership (overall leadership), in the church amongst brethren is by males (plural), under lien from Christ.

You pushing for gender balance, partnership (i.e. equality at all levels of authority) and trying to equate it with my church/home harmony (the flow of God given authority between home and church) is either a misreading or simply disingenuous.

There are clearly defined roles for both genders. All women and men are under authority, albeit it is normal for all women to be under male authority of some sort. Overall leadership in the church (eldership is the preserve of men, with regard to my first paragraph above).

Only a man can be a bishop/elder/shepherd/presbyter/pastor/overseer with oversight for the whole congregation/flock.

If a woman qualifies to be an elder, why can’t she teach?
If a woman qualifies to be amongst the plurality of elders, how can she usurp any that are men? You can only usurp from a higher authority.

That suggests the only usurping, could be of the Lord it also changes this;

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

You are pushing a “neither fish nor fowl” line of reasoning by suggesting or inferring (as TayoD has) that in the home it’s the husband as head, whilst in church leadership, all positions are open to all. Unless of course that’s not what you are saying, one can never be entirely sure.

God bless
TV

@ Stimulus,

On a serious note, this had to be properly expounded because of the bondage inherent in proclaiming;

1. Mandatory tithing with a curse for non-compliance
2. Voluntary tithing with blessings for adherence

Furthermore, tithe is generally taught as in #1. So that had to be debunked. It could easily morph in to #2, so that had to be clarified.

To me they are the flip side of the same coin. It may be subtle in #2, but the coercion and bondage are still there. Can you not see how people would feel obliged to tithe on either basis?

Clearly tithing as a notion (and on whatever basis) has been subsumed into the Christian grace of giving.

But like I have said time and again, if anyone want to pay a tithe (or any fixed amount) as an individual response, fine. If it helps one understand and articulate giving again fine (although I must say I'd see it at best as a youthful Christian mindset). To me it's needless, but I won't make an issue of it on the basis of Christian liberty.

You still haven't made your position clear  !

God bless
TV

sage:
@TV01

I want you to read this. I read the paper yesterday and i wento to the site

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/faith-shouldnt-.html#more

Hi Sage,

Thanks for this. I finally had a moment to read it thoroughly.

I agree. If anything, I think it does not go far enough, and isn't with a strictly Christian focus. My views and position on Christians & politics as a means of gloryfying God, promulgating the gospel or ushering in His kingdom remain unchanged.

Render unto Ceasar wha is his and Unto God all the Glory.

God bless
TV

_{ps: nobody has been able to show scripturally, historicaly or practically how this glorifies God.}

stimulus:
Okay, thanks.

You're welcome ! Okay sorry .

stimulus:
Did so earlier.

When? where??

stimulus:
If there's no difference, why the argument in the first place?

The thread title and poser ~ Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe?

Was to determine if NT Christians were meant to tithe or not? If so on what basis. Meant reviewing it in context, OT & NT, types, shadows, symbolism and practicality.

So my summary would be; no mandatory tithe, voluntary tithing fine, but as in essence it's no different to giving, it's an individual thing. Brethren, enjoy your liberty.

Whats yours?

God bless
TV