₦airaland Forum

@Stimulus,

You wrote;
In the first instance, I have not seen the idea of "overall leadership" expressed in the NT as pertaining to the life of the Church - that is something only Christ Himself holds.

My response;
Eldership is overall leadership
There is a deaconate and an Eldership. The Eldership has overall responsibility/authority (with regard to the Headship of the Lord)

You wrote;
Second, if you're "not saying that every position of authority or leadership has to be by men", what then have you been saying in the idea that leadership is exclusively ascribed to men? That you don't see "every" position of authority as ascribed by men - wouldn't that be saying that women are also in leadership and authority?

My response;
If the bible says older (more mature) women should teach younger ones, is that not in
A sense a form of leadership, does it not suggest at least in that forum, there is authority?
So it can’t be too difficult to see the difference between overall leadership (by male elders) and possible subsidiary roles by others, male or female? Not every, but overall.

You wrote
Let me remind you of what I have argued earlier:

The scope of leadership by women in Church is defined by two things:

       (a) she is not permitted to teach in the Churches

       (b) she is not to usurp authority over the man

My response;
(a)If she is not allowed to teach the whole fellowship, is she allowed to teach in a smaller specific gathering, or at all?
(b)Please explain what constitutes usurping authority over a man/the men, if she is allowed to lead with them, if she is a partner and an equal in authority? You can only usurp one in  higher authority.

You wrote;
I believe we are coming round now seeing the very same thing I have been offering severally. But even so, the point is that she is called to leadership - which is the very thing that has been difficult for many to see. The only thing left now is to put to rest this new idea that "overall leadership" is exclusively to men - and that I will do sometime soon ( I hope by grace before end of the week).

My response;
Not overall, and certainly not eldership, but I await your post.

You wrote;
Order and authority in the Body of Christ emanate from the Head (Christ) and not from a domestic setting. The setting of the home may help us understand some aspects of Church life; but it does not define the life of the Church.

My response;
If I state something that plainly cannot be right or does not make obviously sense, please don’t put on your sporting kit and run with it  .

Could I be saying that Authority stems from the home? Of course I am not. What I mean in context is that the authority that is instituted in the home by God in Christ, is not subject to, subsumed or voided by that instituted in the church, by the same Lord. Clear?

Further church life does not define home life or rule.

You wrote;
Paul was not married - we know that (I Cor. 7:7). But he was called an apostle - not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:1). If we have to stretch this idea of authority emanating from the home, that would be outside Scripture indeed; and we would have to wonder what domestic or family "qualifications" Paul had in order to hold apostolic authority.

My response;
Does what you wrote even make sense to you? Even in light of your misreading me earlier? Does it sound like I could be suggesting that Paul’s calling/qualification as an apostle was predicted on his being married? Or having an ordered family life?

You wrote;
"Male covering at all times" is saying the same thing as that leadership is an exclusive men-only phenomenon.

My response;
If you want to read it that way, fine. But my extrapolation thus far has made it very clear that
1. Overall authority resides with men
2. Being under authority does not mean you are not a leader or cannot lead ~ afterall, the men that lead are under Christ’ authority and The Son is under The Fathers.

You wrote;
I did not insinuate that order in the church overturns or voids that in the home. The one thing I said was that the setting in the home helps us to understand some aspect of Church life; but the home setting does not define Church life. I have demonstrated the point above.

My response;
And my consistently maintained  position is that church order does not impinge on or overturn or void home order. There is harmony.

Say a man has a wife who is more zealous, more involved, mature, active, Godly and any other quality or qualification you care to consider. And let’s say, in your book she qualifies for eldership, and you make her an elder, pray tell, in the home who has authority? And in the church who has authority over whom between the two?

I will review the OT references and possibly post. For now I will say this. There is no pattern of male/female leadership in the OT, that is not to say that women did not fully participate, just not as leaders in the normal course of things. Second trying to invent a whole new paradigm and ignore the clear scriptural leaning towards men in OT leadership just because of a few odd instances of prominent women is force-fitting. Kings, Priest, Prophets were always male.

As is clear from scripture, and I have consistently maintained OT shadows are not to be overlaid wholesale onto NT Christians. The NT contains more than enough detail on which to base Christian Church structure and that restricts eldership to males. Apart from stretched references to Junia and Priscilla, where is there female leadership (overall) in the NT narrative? Even the deacons where exclusively male.

But if you can show it please do so.

God bless
TV

@ Stimulus,

You are really running hard but makiong no ground. Writing a lot but not saying anything. Answering question with posers and posers with queries.

I'll tell you what, why dont you just succinctly and specifically state your position on tithing (be that voluntary or mandatory) and giving, and the difference between the two if any. Please feel free to adumbrate anything else you think may clear the air.

God bless
TV

stimulus:
The one thing I would like to state is that my observations still stand - those who oppose tithing have often again and again ascribed it to a mandatory exercise. At least, I did not offer that as my persuasion; and when you go through the rejoinders again, you will see the point is simply that you have tried raising up the "mandatory" question yet once more.

Simply not true. My reasons for opposing it on a mandatory or voluntary basis are made clear in my last post. As was my reason for having no problems with it (on a voluntary basis only).

stimulus:
Let me simplify issues:

I don't know so much at present about Melchizedek; but one question that I have asked and again continue to ask is this:

      If tithing was mandatory, (or by commandment, or coerced/forced,
      or obligated), I would like to know: who COERCED Abraham to "give" tithes?

A non-question sir. Who has claimed he was co-erced? Or gave it based on the law or a divine mandate? That can only be an arguement for those arguing for a mandatory tithe. Please think it through? As ever you seem to be arguing both sides and making a case for neither  !

He gave a tithe, once, of the spoils of war. Not of His personal possessions. Not ever mentioned again (Jacob apart) until the law.

I have also repeatedly stated that the main thrust of the symbolism of Abrahams tithe to Melchizedek was to demonstrate the superiority of His High Priesthood over the Levitical/Aaronic type.

stimulus:
It is unfortunate that I haven't read anyone on the opposing side address that question directly. Rather, what remotely was offered was someone saying that Abraham gave tithes only once! That simply circumvents the question as to the often strained "mandatory" subscript to the tithing issue.

Happy now?

stimulus:
If tithing is a mandatory exercise, who commanded/mandated or COERCED Abraham to do so? And if it is not, why do we often read again and again in your replies that you're so concerned about this question of tithe being "MANDATORY"??

It isn't, it wasn't and I'm not.

stimulus:
Secondly, I have also asked about this issue of rather denying that the Scriptures teach that tithers and givers derive any blessing thereto. I offered the few verses that came to mind at the time. But for all that, you only gave a terse reply that did not touch upon my question directly. The one thing I have come to is this: if anyone wants to "simply give" and does not find any blessing in doing so, they could remain in that position and do as they please. BUT, they cannot claim that such an idea is what Scripture teaches for others who tithe or give.

What's the difference between tithing and giving? Or the distinction between tithers and givers?

stimulus:
If there is no distinction of the types of giving we make in Scripture, I don't see any reason why some of you guys would be using the same terms described in Scripture in the first place and arguing against this disntinct service!

Please share the distinctions between "types of giving (other than for a real physical need), with special emphasis on the tithe vs giving difference.

Thanks

God bless
TV

Aproko:
lol it simply means prayer warriors tell you what you want to hear most of the time. so be your own prayer warrior, end of story.

Yes 0!

@ Stimulus,

I said this;

First, I am in no way proclaiming universal male authority. Or the authority of every man (even if we restrict this to mature men - that is making a distinction b/w mature men and simply males) over every woman.

This was in response to TayoD' specific concern about "every man being seen as the head of every woman". Certainly related, but not in direct response to the main question of overall leadership in the church. Please read me carefully here. I am not saying that every (universally) position of trust/reaponsibility/authority or leadership in church has to be by men, only the overall (eldership), which is scripturally limited to men.

Which in no way contradicts (but is to be read in conjunction) with the following;

1.

A woman would go from her fathers house to her husbands. In the event of widowhood (as we see from Paul writing to Timothy), the family - normally in the form of adult males - become primarily responsible for her welfare. But there s male covering authority at all times.

2.

With this in mind, when/wher/what/how would any woman in the congrgation not be subject to some sort of male authority?

So even if a woman has a role or ministry in the church, she would in some way still be subject to her husband/fathers/eldest male relative's authority. To say otherwise would leave a gap in my reasoning on this whole issue. If my position is bettered from scripture, that's one thing, for it to fall down through inconsistency is another.

My stance in contrast to TayoD', is order and authority emanate out of the family and are not inverted or done away with once we step into a church setting, but rather maintained and expanded on.

So there is/should be male covering at all times, but it is not every male that covers. Comprende?

You said;

Order in the home helps in part; but it does not define Church life. And again, leadership is simply leadership; therefore, the idea of "overall leadership" ascribed to solely the men is not what Scripture says; and I have tried to demonstrate this partly in my rejoinders to sage. Leadership is a joint exercise; not an exclusive one.

Again, and as with TayoD, we differ on this point. I don't see order in the church as over turning or voiding order in the home. I see a perfect flow from one to the other. A harmony. So far, other positions suggest dissonance between home and church.

No it's not a joint exercise or a partnership in gender terms. It's a responsibility assigned to men. and for men to relinquish that is to enter in to "Ahab" territory. Enuff said.

I have offered a few examples of women called in joint exercise of leadership in the area of shepherding. Let me sound this once more: shepherding is only one of the types of leadership (it is not the only issue that defines leadership).

Miriam ~  did not shepherd Israel alongside Moses (and Aaron), as she was not called or commissioned with them. Please read the Genesis account a little more carefully.

Deborah ~ Please keep reading on to Judges chapter 4. She offered judgement (sound and wise counsel) as a "mother in Israel". That can be done as I've outlined. People went to her to seek her Godly advise. She did not head or shepherd the nation. She reluctantly co-lead in battle, but pointedly proclaimed that it was not God's will. It removes the glory. Woman is man's glory and man is God's.

I have said that only in contingency situations are women to take the lead. I have repeated noted the proviso "mature, suitably qualified, available and willing males".

I hope you appreciate that I did'nt just dismiss Sisters Miriam and Deborah as abberations and your own whimsy  !

It's the same arguemts I hear all the time about "strong black women" leading homes. Sure they can lead homes, sure they are strong, but is that the ideal? Is that God's preferred way??

Second, women do not receive their authority from the eldership. The case is simply that authority comes from the Head of the Body

So pray tell, what authority if any does the eldership have? And can women be elders??

Third, the idea that women can minister/teach other women and juvenile is still trying to limit their scope of leadership narrower than the Word defines. How? Men also can minister/teach juveniles as well; so I wouldn't see why that role should be more fitting only for women.

No, it's not trying to limit, it's following the scriptural outline. The limit thing is for you to take up with the Author.

I never said it was not permissable for men, or more fitting for women. I said it was allowed for women (although possibly in some instances preferred, empathy and all that).

I already gave the example of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts 18 - both the man and the woman together "expounded" the way of God more perfectly to Apollos (vs. 26). Not many people realize that the woman here was fulfilling a role in leadership when she partnered with her husband to 'expound' (make an intelligent exposition of) God's way more perfectly to the very intelligent Apollos.

Like I said, you are reading leadership into everything. Do two people co-lead one person? They were giving him deeper insight into Christian life and practice. It was counsel. It was not public. In fact if it had been Priscilla alone (without her husband), I would think nothing of it. It's akin to the Deborah role (I'm so tidy  !).

I don't disparage that at all. The question is: what would those talents, skills and gifts point to? What "roles" do you think women have (as you said here)?

Please don't weary me, I have answered this severally.

I've been trying my best to simplify things, and will continue to do so. What is constantly before me is that whatever I offer should not simply be theories; but practical and applicable as well.

Women in overall leadership be that in the home or church is not ideal or scriptural. But can it be done? yes. Can men or women run/lead home/church in the adsence of the other? yes. Is it ideal?
the way it was designed? No. Give God Glory!

God bless
TV

@ Stimulus

What I have observed in your own position on this matter is that you make tithing mandatory by default; and anyone who tries to share something with you on the subject will have to see you react predictably.

You must be mistaking me for someone else. There is practically no one arguing for madatory tithing, at least not based on the law of Moses. Having said that in understanding the whole issue it was useful to look at it from the viewpoints of being;

1. mandatory or
2. Voluntary.

Mandatory Tithing has been considered and thoroughly debunked.

Voluntary tithing as an individual decision is not an issue. I personally have repeatedly said if anyone voluntarily chooses to give a tithe  - even if they choose a figure that is not exactly 10% and call it a tithe-  no problem.

Moving on there seem to be 2 final points;

1. Some insight from Abrahams tithe to Melchizedek (which we are waiting for)
2. Assigning benefits to voluntary tithing which do not accrue to those who simply give.

My point being, that trying to sell a voluntary tithe on the basis of it accruing certain benefits not accruing to someone who simply gives (on the basis of need or blessing),  or claiming it makes one in some respect more spiritually mature is no where found in scripture.

And this is how I left it whilst anticipating Bari-Kade's next post.

"Tithe as voluntary with benefits for adherence is the flip side of the coin that says it's mandatory with curses for non-adherence".

It still leads people into feeling they must tithe. The bondage is the same, the means somewhat more subtle.

The only other thing is to see tithing as giving. In that case what is the point of making a distinction?

Geddit?

God bless
TV

TayoD:
However, one thing I noted and will respond to is the following coment: Headship exists only in marriage and not within the members of Christ's body. There is only one body with one head - Christ. Likewise in marriage, there is one body with one head - the man.

Declaring that headship exists within the Body of Christ is a blatant violation of the following scriptures.

Ephesians 5:23 - For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Colossians 1:18 - And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Colossians 2:19 - And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

As you can see from these scriptures, Christ is the Head of one body - the Church, and the husband (not just any male), is the Head of His Wife (not all females).

This is the main contention I have with everyone on this thread. Until we realise that a male is no where given authority over the female strictly because of gender (with the exception of marriage), we will not even begin to appreciate the equality of both sexes within the body.

@ TayoD,

Lets talk around your point here.

First, I am in no way proclaiming universal male authority. Or the authority of every man (even if we restrict this to mature men - that is making a distinction b/w mature men and simply males) over every woman.

Secondly I also agree that Headship of the  Church is the preserve of he Lord Jesus Christ. His Body, His Bride. No dispute, no shaking.

I'd like to articulate how I see gender and status determining relationships and ultimately church and family order. Here goes.

Men can be sons, husbands, fathers (ideally in that order). Likewise, women can be daughters wifes and mothers.

Now a daughter (& a son) are under their fathers (parents) authority until such time as they get married. The only other status is one of being widowed.

A woman would go from her fathers house to her husbands. In the event of widowhood (as we see from Paul writing to Timothy), the family - normally in the form of adult males - become primarily responsible for her welfare. But there s male covering authority at all times.

With this in mind, when/wher/what/how would any woman in the congrgation not be subject to some sort of male authority?

You talk of adult - even mature - women (albeit unwed) as free voices, not subject to anyone once in the body of believers. I'd appreciate if you could explicate some more around this, as personally I don't see it.


@ Stimulus,

Maybe our literary styles are different, or maybe we are talking from different perspecrives and/or contrary premises.

As simply as I can state it.

~ I believe the overall leadership (true servant leadership and modelling maturity) in the office of elder is limited to men. Again it speaks to the dovetailing of the home and church. "If a man cannot rule his own home well" as you yourself quoted. Order starts in the home and flows to the church (TayoD is yet to convince me that women can be subject at home but rule in the church)

~ Women can minister/teach other women and juveniles and with authority (from the eldership). They can also counsel privately anyone that can benefit from their maturity, but they cannot in the presence of mature qualified and available men teach or presume overall leadership of the congregation. If one wants to see this ministry as a form of "leadership", I won't be semantic, but it is not shepherding the flock or overall leading the church. Biblically/historically, could/were women ever shepherds? 

~ Women have roles, abetted with skills, talents, gifts and of course the same Spirit and grace afforded to men. Their are joint heirs and equally valued by God.

I appreciate your efforsts, but I sometimes find it very hard to pin down your persuasions. I also understand that there are nuances to the discussion, but either way, it would be easier if we could discuss from stated views or considered opinions.

@ Sage,

I see and appreciate your attempts to show the continuum (whilst acknowledging the change) from OT to NT. I would say though that worship is not synonymous with leadership. Again, worship is first and foremost an individual matter before being a congregational affair. Indeed, hierarchy and authority are not necessarily indicators of devotion or true worship. Judas was an Apostle, but doubtless, true heartfelt devotion to and worship of the Lord came from many of the women who ministered to Him as opposed to stole from and betrayed Him.

God bless
TV

@Stimulus,

The reason why I have not said that a woman (singular) can lead a church is that I do not read it so in the Bible. And the same applies to the man - I do not read it anywhere said that A MAN (singular) can lead a church.

Agreed. But my position is that overall leadership in the church (regardless of minor or subsidiary leadership roles) is limited to men (plurality of elders noted).

ii) men cannot claim exclusive leadership in Church

Under the Headship of The Lord, I believe they can.

Overall my view on your posts on this topic are as follows;

Yes we are all members of the Body. Yes we all joined together, have something to minister and thereby edify one another. Yes the priestly role is universal (presumably you know that priests offer spiritual sacrifices and intercede?). Yes the Spirit of God is poured out on all flesh (no gender bias, but may I ask in passing, is that Jews, Christians &/or Gentiles?). Yes the genders are complimentary and dependent one on the other. But why does any of this suggest that in a church setting women are to take anything other then secondary lead in well defined roles?

You’ve gone on and on about chauvinists, 2nd class citizens, oppressing women, male exclusivity ect (all very familiar militant feminist jargon), but you have singularly failed to demonstrate that women are to lead the flock of God in anything other than a subsidiary (or at best contingency) role.

You keep misapplying scripture that does not speak to a church setting, whilst ignoring those that do. In addition to the injunctions in 1 Cor & 2 Tim, the qualifications for eldership are clearly related to gender. Quoting “one in Christ” or “man without woman” in order to push female leadership is at best misguided. Nobody said women are without the Spirit, talents or ability. Indeed, verbally they are on average more gifted than men, so what?

Neither has anyone said that the roles women play in church are less than profound. But you also seem to miss it on some other points

~ You omit the profundity of the woman’ role in the home
~ You fail to understand that home is at least as important as church
~ You seem to fall into the trap of thinking leadership is about “power”. Maybe in secular terms, but in the Christian economy, it’s about service.
~ Being in Christ and being in church are not in all ways synonymous, as someone has pointed out, salvation is not the same as service.

Even if I agree to the idea of a partnership, that does not traduce the concept of gender separation, lines of authority, or areas of responsibility. A man and wife both come together to create a newborn. Please ask God why the differing roles are not gender neutral or interchangeable.

God bless
TV

@ Stimulus,

Oh come on. If there's neither a mandatory nor voluntary tithe/giving, what are you arguing about then? This is the problem with how you guys make some of us woonder at your debates: it seems to be neither here nor there!

For some reason, you insist that voluntary tithing akin to giving. Please show what the distinction is if any. And the difference in benefits if any.

Oh come on. If there's neither a mandatory nor voluntary tithe/giving, what are you arguing about then? This is the problem with how you guys make some of us woonder at your debates: it seems to be neither here nor there!

Sleight of hand I see. I have repeatedly stated that giving is an integral part of the Christian lifestyle.  Your attempting to equate tithing with giving while at the same time saying it is something different is at best confused. Or if I'm the one that is confused, perhaps an answer to my question in bold above may help.

And if one wants to give and call it 10% by law, fine also - yes?  This is hardly an discussion.

You don't appear to differentiate between giving, tithing and law. Back to my question above.

I'll just ask one thing of you, please: could you offer me some explanation of the following verses:

Deut. 15:10
"Thou shalt surely give him, and (A)thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: (B)because that for this thing the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto."

Prov. 3:9-10
(A)"Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: (B)[So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine."

Prov. 19:17
"He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again."

Luke 6:38
"Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."

Heartfelt, freewill giving is loved of and blessed by God.

When people argue that NT believers "simply give" and it has no "blessing" thereto, I'm only wondering if they actually are open to what the Word teaches, or they simply want to remain in their default contrary views.

Who made this claim? Surely you can't be ascribing it to me as although I said that NT "simply give" (to a need), I never suggested or hinted that there was no blessing attached.

I hope this is a discussion? If you don't want to tithe or give at all because you believe there's no blessing thereto, please remain with that idea to yourself and try not passing it as an authoritarian view.

Like I said, you have no clue what I want to do, or what I believe. But in any event, please don't ascribe things to me. What you can do is answer the question. Please non of your usual fence-sitting, non-commital ambiguity.

Thanks

God bless
TV

@ Stimulus,

Can women take overall lead of the flock? The thread is titled "Can you attend a church led by a woman?" Presumably that would be a yes or a no and why not.

stimulus:
Following that, I have been trying to say these few things:

(a) women do have leadership roles in the Body of Christ (I've tried to offer a few)

(b) the scope of such leadership roles are defined by two things:
i. women are asked to not teach in the church[b]es[/b]
ii. they are not to usurp authority over the men

(c) leadership in the Body of Christ is not exclusively reserved to men

(d) leadership in the Body of Christ is a partnership where men and women are called
and spiritually equipped together for whatever roles they fulfill

(e) men and women are together priests in the NT; and the NT worship is not a continuum of the OT
worship mode.

Here's why I'm confused

(a) The bible outlines area where women can take the lead, participate and/or minister. So you have not said either way if women can lead a church.
(b) With that in mind, can a woman lead a church?
(c) Overall leadership is (IMHO), and I'm happy to say so and stand to be corrected, if you can show it from scripture. Your ambiguous use of terms like "leadership roles" says not very much.
(d) How did you arrive at the "leadership partnership" conclusion? It is not a partnership between the sexes if that's what you meant. All the members of the body are in some way gifted and can contribute and of course work in partnership. That doesn't necessarily suggest leadershio roles for all. Eldership is reserved for mature males.
(e) Again, nobody is arguing against a universal priesthood, but why does that mean leadership? A priest offers up spiritual sacrifices and interceeds. Just because the OT paradigm for priesthood is changed to be all-inclusive, it doesn't automatically imply that women can lead a NT church.

You keep trying to tie everything back to leadership. And at the same time you are being ambiguous on what exactly leadership is, especially overall leading of the flock. All can minister, all can serve, but not all can lead. To say that women have "leadership roles" is to essentially say nothing in regards to the specific question posed in this thread.

Perhaps specifics would help.

God bless
TV

@ Stimulus,

Lets just leave Bari_Kade to post when and as shall we? There is obviously some cross-purpose on that point, so lets desist.

(a) when you make something "exclusive", you leave no room for any possibility of an "exception" - so the idea that tithes were exclusively agricultural products is weakened by the excepted "mitigating circumstances";

Be as pedantic as you please. The madatory tithe under the law was agricultural products. An exception was made when transporting them was onerous. Happy now? If you have an informed rebuttal to this point please post.

b) most people still hold on to this idea that tithes must by default be a demand (or akin to a command, mandate, coercion, force, compulsion, etc.). The point is (and I agree with bari_kade here) that it ought not necessarily be so. Infact, is that not the challenge he offered to the opposers of tithing to mirror their objections on any other type of "giving" as see if the same argument holds?

That is simply your opinion. You have no clue to what most people hold on to.

I have repeatedly stated as follws;

1. There is no mandatory (curse for failure) tithe. Nor is there a
2. Voluntary (spiritual benefits attached, maturity implied, because one calls it a "tithe" one.

If one wants to give and call it a tithe, fine.

As I said earlier and reposted below;

There is nothing about a mandatory tithe and a voluntary one cannot be distinguished from giving, unless you ascribe some benefits from doing so, thus ascribing it some sort of difference from normal giving? Now, pray tell, does the NT do that?

The only way out, is a voluntary tithe as an individual response, which does not in itself accrue benefits denied to one who does not do same, or mark the tither out as any more spiritual or mature. If that's your call no qualms.

If you have anything to post in response, please do so.

God bless
TV

@ Stimulus,

I was about to post, when I saw your latest rejoinders. Pray tell, what exacltly is your position? I'm finding it very hard to discern.

I'd appreciate your outlining it in a few clear and concise sentences, otherwise my rejoinder may be mis-directed and mis-understood.

Thanks
TV

@Stimulus,

All I've said is that Bari_Kade does not need to solicit rejoinders prior to posting, as they will naturally flow after he does so. As for the cut-off, I  simply said that asking for rejoinders whilst unlikely to work and being counter-intuitive, was made even more difficult by not giving a cut-off time for them.

We are still waiting for Bari-Kade's insight and we all appreciate the size of the task and the time constraints.

Meanwhile, I can respond to 2 questions you touched upon.

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?

1. I never made the claim about "The Church replacing Israel". Nor has it been shown as pivotal to this discussion, so I haven't bothered pursuing that line of discussion.
2. Tithes under the law were exclusively agricultural products (of the land), except in the odd mitigating circumstance. Outside the law, I can see no scriptural imperative or divine command for a tithe, OT or NT.

God Bless
TV

uji:
babyosisi and tv01 u guys beta lay low bout that man, he is the best gift any generation can have!, u re probably not born again

@uji, please tell me what you have taken offence at? I posted some scripture without a word of personal commentary about your MOG, his/your ministry or his/your church. Not in my sole post on this thread or any other post on any other thread. Yet you not only threatened me, you made a judgement call as to my spiritual state?Which I don't think it's your place to do regardless of any error I have made or offence I may have caused

I can only assume you mentioned my name in error? Please feel free to say so, and to retract your earlier comments. No apology required.

God bless
TV

stimulus:
How is it that when some of una want to argue issues, you simply can't read and make sense of what others have said? I'm one of those waiting expectantly for bari_kade's interesting highlights; but are you guys deliberately failing to see the challenges he offered in his outlines?

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;

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.
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.

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

What has anyone raised in objection to his outlines? At least, he has offered some points to counter previously held notions, which as yet no one has argued against.

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

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

The one reason why I left off the discussion in this thread for a while was because, as bari_kade himself observed, some posts seem to be far more concerned with derision than with calm and objective reasoning from Scripture. I just hope such a trend would not continue so that the discussion can progress.

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

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

Thanks & God bless
TV

As promised;

Eph 5:22-24 ~ Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
(Col 3:18 ~ Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 20 Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord).

There is no inserting a “wife submit to church leadership before your husband or instead of your husbands”. This violates the essence of the spousal union.

I see an articulation of Christianity that says “Church is all”. Frankly I don’t see this in scripture, neither do I subscribe to it.

One of the outworkings of this is that some think they are married to the church or that the church is their “head). No. They are the church and the church is the bride of Christ (and of course it’s Head). Erroneously taking the church as their head, means everything (incorrectly) is articulated through and submitted to the church leadership. Again, I don’t see that as scriptural.

There is a home/family setting and a church/ fellowship gathering (lets ignore the secular to keep things focused). A disconnect in the relationship between the two is a result of wrong understanding and incorrect emphasis on the mandates, structure responsibility and authority of either to the detriment/warping of the other.

A point in question, I attended a marriage seminar where I was told that any courtship had to be reported to and sanctioned by the church. Again, not scripturally true, marriage is first and foremost a family affair.

You have a daughter 9or son), take care for raising, nurturing, modeling marriage and Christian family life to her for 21 odd years, then when it’s time to wed, she needs to “see pastor for 6 week marriage counseling and instruction” or else church will not sanction or perform the wedding. It’s not churches place to sanction or give away a mans daughter. Just like church was not responsible for raising, feeding or educating her.

Said daughter (ideally) is under her fathers authority until such time as she weds, whereupon authority passes to her husband. And just as her father was responsible for providing and protecting her, her husband now assumes this role.

I am not saying church cannot offer, support, counseling or other help, but church and more specifically pastor, have no overriding authority in this essentially family affair.

1 Corinthians 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

A man has a direct responsibility for his wife and family with direct recourse to the Lord.

1Timothy 5:8 ~ But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever

Read this in the broader context of providing for widows. That responsibility as Paul outlined, fell to the immediate family first. The first and foremost reason church does not take authority over the family is because it does not have prime responsibility for it. The responsibility for widows fell to the church only in the event that there was no family.

Likewise in my “girl gets married” scenario outlined above. Ceding authority to the church could only happen if there was a familial void.


This misunderstanding of the nature and limits of church authority leads to warped church structures & hierarchies. Submitting to Sole Authority Pastors and relinquishing personal/familial responsibility (and/or authority) to the church engenders rampant abuse. It’s right there before our very eyes. It’s why the church throws up Rev. Kings, it’s why the unscriptural tithe can be enforced and then wantonly misappropriated. It why everyone runs to hear the end-of/beginning of year prophecy from some pompously titled, self-styled MOG. It’s key for one to understand the proper biblical alignment of family and church, and more importantly that family and a walk with God lead to church. Church does not moderate family or an individual walk with God.

An idea of Church/fellowship that controls your time, your money and your family, is simply not to be found in scripture.

1Corinthians 7:23 ~ You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

The parallels and outlines the bible draws are clear. Before church there was the spousal union, there was family.

I have not even begun to touch on the whole purpose of fellowship or gathering as church.

God bless
TV

Hi Stimulus,

So, at last some common ground  !

I agree with first submission being to the Lord. But I would suggest that the Lords pointer is "wife submit to your husband in all instances" (noting the criminal/sin/blasphemy disclaimer).

The difference appears to be in our leaning in determining if the authority of the church trumps the mandate of the husband?

I've written something up, It was written before your post, but I think speaks very much to it. I'll post following and continue tomorrow.

God bless
TV

I'm here O 

Presumably the "Apostle" question will be dealt with on this thread at a later stage, or on a completyely different one. No probs.

I note TayoD's submission on the situation he witnessed. Fine. My aim is not to speak around a particular situation of which I am unfmiliar with the full detail, but to understand the generic and clear leading of scripture on the family unit and the authority within, and how it aligns with the church and the authority there.

Again, my understanding from scripture is that a wife is subject first and foremost to her husband (unless of course he asks her to do something criminal or blasphemous).

It's plain to see that Stimulus is championing an over-arching church authority that subsumes and overides anything a family and more pertinently a husband may decide is best for his family. Indeed, I seem to be hearing that God works through the church (or it's leadership), to determine what is best for families and if families don't adhere or subscribe to church initiatives, they are rebelling against God.

That to me is a total misstatement of what Christian life is all about, what a relationship and walk with God entails, and of course a total unbalancing of Family, church and secular life. I begin to see why some people thing their Christian walk is articulated thropugh church and their service or activity to it or in it. Not to my understanding.

So as not to be tedious, and in recognition of the fact that you started the thread, may I suggest that you raise a specific question to start the discussion.

God bless
TV

Hi Stimulus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open another thread for the Apostle discussion if you please.

God bless
TV

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

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

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

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues" (I Cor. 12:28 )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless
TV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless
TV

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

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

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

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

God bless
TV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless
TV

Hi TayoD,

I trust you are enjoying the action at Wimbledon!?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soon come.

God bless
TV

TayoD:
By and large, we are saying the same thing even if you choose to make fun at my use of words.

You took that very well  . I tender my humble apologies for that outbreak (and previous and subsequent) of facetiuosness.

TayoD:
Don't give yourself the liberty to pre-empt my action and belief in a lifestyle that is unequivocally condemned by the scriptures. And by your answer, you tacttically side-stepped the point I made.

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

TayoD:
This is very pertinent to this discussion. We need to make it abundantly clear that God views a married man differently than He does an unmarried man. It is what makes the difference between God's declaration of "very good" and "it is not good."

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

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

TayoD:
Okay let's straighten this out.  1 Corinthians 11:3 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.. I'm sure you'll agree that the entire passage is actually talking about authority. I also hope you'll agree that the man and woman as mentioned in the passage refers exclusively to a husband and wife. If that is not so, then we must conclude that every man must be the head of any and every woman.

Absolutely, I read it as authority. Some (champions of female leaders) read it as origin, either way read in conjunction with other scripture, the conclusion is the same.

Whether you read it as man and wife or, individual men and women or even collectively, other verses (Wives submit to your OWN husbands etc), will not let one conclude universal male authority and nobody is arguing that.

TayoD:
What this means therefore is that in a church setting, no male has any preference over any female whatsoever. Authority is either expressed through the ministerial offices or the marital relationship. Stretching it beyond these two is totally opposed to divine revelation.

Not strictly true, although I see I see your point and since I'm being anal this morning I'll clarify. Even in a church setting, the husbands authority over his wife holds and is not "left at home". The family takes precedence over the church (IMHO). So, I wouldn't strictly say "no male over any female" if there is a spousal union. So I agree with your second sentence, but that is neither here nor there as we are discussing if women can occupy said ministerial offices, and to my understanding (no wisecracks here  ), that's a NO! Will a mature Christian man submit to someone else's wife? Then it's not to far a stretch to ask him to submit to his own wife is it? It's convoluted at best. So I also agree with your 3rd sentence, but not your inherent implication that women can hold office. "if a man desires the office". It's not for women to covet such.

Now that you understand my position, please correct me if I think your position suggests that God's promise to pour down His Spirit upon all flesh in the last days is predicated on gender.

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

Good question.  The fact that the Christ image which is what marriage typifies still gives pre-eminence to the Head (though we are His body) necessitates this arrangement.  Besides, the role of each is specifically mentioned in scripture as relates to marriage but same is not the case when it comes to the Church.

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

What alarms me is the thought that God picks his servants based on their gender. It is this kind of argument that made even Christians justify slavery and racial superiority from scriptures.

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

That God gives roles and functions in the church based on sex is untenable. Perhaps, paul was also mistaken when he refred to Junia (a woman) as a leading Apostle - Romans 16:7 - Greetings to Andronicus and Junia, my relatives, who were in prison with me. They are very important apostles. They were believers in Christ before I was.

TayoD, you no dey fear  . Surely you expect this particularly weak return to get smashed back with all the ferocity and contempt it deserves (even you under-arm serving paddy - Bro' Analytical - wouldn't attempt this  !).

Junia was "of note" amongst the apostles, not one of them. Junia is/was not and nowhere listed as an apostle (however you choose to categorise the apostles). And Junia' gender is at best debatable.
Brother please! Important ko, impotent ni, abeg.

You wish!

No I most certainly don't
I'll post a pic of my babe, then all gender/role confusion will leave you immediately  !

God bless sir
TV

TayoD:
I guess you missed my gist altogether!

I guess!

TayoD:
What I am trying to say is that the issue is about Christ and how the church is supposed to express that mystical figure.

TayoD, ah, ah, off you go again on one of your "mystical" journeys. I don't know about "Church expressing Mystical Figure (Christ)". I do know about Husband and wife, mirroring Christ and His Church (bride even).

TayoD:
In Christ, there is neither male nor female which nullifies your statement that roles are assigned based on gender!

Presumably you'd follow that line of arguement as you champion same-sex marriages and gay-homosexual sex. After all, there is neither male nor female in Christ  .

TayoD:
The Christ image was prefigured in the garden of eden only when there was marriage between a male and a female. Now think about it this way. When God create Adam, He said it was not good that the man should be alone because the male Adam was not a representative of the Christ without a wife. God created the woman (the sex is not an issue here) so Adam could become the image of the Christ.

Dude, stop it already  .

So then, authority over the woman is only exercised by a husband over her which is exactly Paul's argument in the NT.

Did I say otherwise? Although I wouldn't argue it on your basis above.

If you tell us that God apoints people into offices based on their sex, then you are teling us that God is carnal in His decision-making.

We've had long pow-wows about office, function and role. Now about gender, sex and role. Now I understand why you have to take some of the positions you do.

I'm not saying that God is carnal. John 4 says "God is Spirit". Presumably since gender or sex have no role to play (as we are all one in Christ), why can't women lead homes, or better still be "husbands"? TayoD, please stop, you are starting to alarm me.

The authority that the woman is asked to subject herself to in the NT is that of her husband and under no circumstance are we told that the male (because of their gender), are in a better position of grace than the female (because of her gender).

I outlined my position on Husban/Wife/Church earlier. Very simply too. As for the grace bit, nobody disputes this, but I would suggest that stepping outside God given roles, functions, offices or spheres of influence couls affect the grace on one.

I hope I am clear enough now.

I can't say so authoritatively, but then again, I'm not your husband

God bless
TV

bari_kade:
I'm still asking that if anyone has any concerns strong enough to flaw the outline of my piece delineated above, they could raise them.

You're not asking for permission to post are you? If so granted .

It's standard for posters to make their submissions, and then for respondents to comment or raise concerns, if any. That kind of initiates discussion themes and sub-themes, sets the tone and lends context.

You appear intent on pre-empting and answering all questions on the one submission? Laudable I'm sure, but it doesn't really seem practical? For one, how will you know if/when every "concern" has been raised?

If anyone feels there is something to raise or add for discursive robustness, or if you later feel you'd like to add, amend or clarify, that will happen as the discussion progresses.

Dude/ette, kindly put us out of our misery and post.

Ta

God bless
TV

TayoD:
@TV01, Are you telling us that every woman is under the authority of every man?

No, I am not. Whatever gave you that idea? I don't subscribe to the "male universal authority over every woman view". The thought is a little bit scary  ! The number of uppity wimmin' on Nairaland is enough to do any mans head in, let alone a single domiciled wifey  !

TayoD:
Isn't the scripture clear that it is a wife (woman) that is under the authority of her husband (man)?

Yes I believe it is, too me anyway.

Man in the home
=> Authority over wife and kids

Men (plural) in the church
=> Servant leadership and modelling to the flock as a whole. Individual women are still to submit to their own husbands regardless of the church structure/hierarchy. Church structure in no way supercedes or subverts family structure (to all you women that try and deal with their husbands by claiming "pastor says", well pastor can kiss my shiny black behind. TV is pastor in his own house, even if no where else ).

God bless
Domestic (Abraham commanded his household, as for me and my house) Pastor
TV

proudly:
I still find it amazing that men do not realize its their ego that makes them feel this way(no offense to the real men)

Not ego, make-up. Creative design and order.

proudly:
but truth be told men do not like being controlled by a woman,

As above, women were created for men, not the other way round. Women like to control and manipulate men. It's as much a part of the fallen nature of humans as the male ego. And I'd venture to say it's done mankind more harm !

proudly:
they forget that church business is God's business,

And in God's business men lead under authority from Christ.

proudly:
if God speaks through woman or a man, does it really matter as long as the proper message is given to the people of the church.

Speaking aside, this is about leadership, authority and order as outlined in the scriptures. Roles, and spheres of influence are assigned on a gender basis,, take up any arguements on that with The Almighty and stop trying to argue (manipulate, scheme and decieve) your way into authority that is simply not yours to take (or indeed mens to give ~ although some Ahabs would accede to female duplicity ).

proudly:
does it really matter as long as the proper message is given to the people of the church.

Yes it matters. And if it's the message that matters, why make it a gender issue?

God bless
TV

1st Corinthians

Chapter 1
11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Chapter 3
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.

21 Therefore let no one boast in men.

Chapter 4
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

7 For who makes you differ from another?