₦airaland Forum

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

@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