₦airaland Forum

@ 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

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=272.msg1225472#msg1225472 date=1182514473]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.[/quote]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?

No real difference, but it essentially boils down to who is doing the defining.

Seun post at #6 gives a good idea of the general usage of the term these days.

No, because it's wrong on many levels.

1. A church is never "led" by a single person (or in truth led by people).
2. Christian women are not permitted to take authority over men. It inverts divine order.

Hi Bari_Kade,

I've outlined my position on this severally. It's very simple and not based on any MOG or denominational teaching, just the clear leading of scripture and based on my (admitted not as much as I'd like) knowing Christ.

I won't bother restating what I've summed up several times, or even outlining the broad areas of concensus I think we've all reached.

In fact, this post is not actually about the topic at hand. It's really about your recent attitude on it. I've often had cause to admire the scholarly way you go about stating your position on issues, and the order and conciseness, even in your oft quite lengthy posts. Who could have failed to note your admirable attitude in not really digressing from the topic at hand and keeping firmly away from ad-hominem remarks.

However, over the past week or so on this thread, you've demonstrated personality traits and characteristics that I would never have ascribed to you, and which, if I'd been told about, I don't think I'd have believed or wanted too. I won't bother levelling any accusations or charges, as I think anyone who cares to back-read some of the recent posts will see it for themselves, plus I'm looking beyond this to the growth edification which is the whole point, right?

You have promised to reveal some overlooked, misunderstood or unknown truths around the issue of tithing (and I note your insistance on classifying it, and as a type of giving). No problem, I for one am quite eager to hear and keen for you to do so.

I don't see that the continous back and forthing, denying the claims and decrying the positions of those who have at least been straightforward enough to air them, without proffering alternative readings for discursive comparision and critique avails anyone even a smidgin of edification. Indeed, quite the opposite.

So, could I once again ask you too please share with us. I sure Holy Spirit inspired truth will put an end to all gainsaying. If some of us have been walking in error, it can only be all round beneficial and edifying for us to be corrected in love.

As ever, I look forward to sharing.

Thank you & God bless
TV

ricadelide:
I don't think the issue of the soul coming into existence when the spirit entered the body is of any consequence as to predicting either its nature or its future. what matters is that it exists.

Well I personally do think it's of consequence. I am not denying the fact of ensoulment.

ricadelide:
Everything outside of God has a beginning; the spirit of man has a beginning, likewise the body. the soul has a different beginning from the other two, that does not disqualify it from either being an entity on its own or being able to survive after seperation from the body.

Please show from scripture that the soul survives death.

ricadelide:
the emphasis the bible places on the salvation of the soul (IPet1;9, Heb.10;31, ), and the dividing of soul and spirit (Heb. 4;12) as well as direct references to distinct soulish entities or functions especially as regards the (renewing of) the mind (rom 12;2, Eph. 4;23, Phil. 4;8, Rom. 8;5-7, Col. 3;2,10) should show us how important the subject of the soul is and act as a pointer to us that the soul does not 'dissolve' after death.

That depends on your take on the root of the word translated soul in every case. If the soul survives death, as above  please show it. Upon death, I believe the scriptures show that sleep follows. No more consciousness.

ricadelide:
however later on i'd go into much more detail
in my opinion, the car analogy isnt apt. cheers.

I'd love to hear you expound when you have the time. And a more apt anolgy if you have one.

God bless
TV

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=272.msg1218089#msg1218089 date=1182270665]I think the same argument could be adduced for any other type of giving you read of in the Bible - OT or NT. It is just as pointed to ask: to give or not give? And then the same roundabout argument all over again.[/quote]Au contraire, I'm not sure how one could ever reach this conclusion in light of what both the OT & NT detail about tithing and giving  .

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=272.msg1218089#msg1218089 date=1182270665]The thing is this: if anyone can argue against tithing, they should be prepared to argue also against any other type of giving. So far, I haven't read a sound persuasion on the real essence of NT giving from those arguing merely against tithing.[/quote]I expected more from you sir. The thread has been about whether NT Christians should tithe or not. We've done a very good job of reaching a broad consesus on some major points. To try and swing the discussion round to one about "giving" is at best a backward step. Nobody has suggested that giving is to be considered anything other than standard Christian lifestyle/practice, afforded by grace. To claim that to argue against tithing is to argue against giving is disingenuous at best .

Once more, attempting to use the "stick or carrot" approaches to validate tithing - i.e. it's mandatory with a curse for non-compliance, or voluntary with blessings for conforming - are the flip side of the same coin of religious deception (or ignorance). I totally concur with HND-holders "stealing by method" tag. I'll go further add emphatically state that anyone who preaches that is either decieved or a deciever.

Unless someone can introduce some hitherto unpresented truth, insight or revelation that clearly accords with scripture, there is nothing to make me rethink. You promised to bring some unseen truth to the discussion, which we eagerly await.

God bless
TV

Do tithing proponents have anything to add?

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=59218.msg1217824#msg1217824 date=1182266608]I don't remember arguing against the survival of the soul beyond death. Infact, in quoting Rev. 6:9, that was the case I wanted to point out.[/quote]I think in keeping with my current position of no ensoulment prior to the body/spirit union, I can't say I believe in the existence of a soul after the dissolution of same.

The body decays, the spirit returns to God who gave it. Surely at best the soul sleeps, until such tiome as there is a ressurection?

God bless
TV

Analytical:
Nope!  Guess she was on a different plane -mine was the spiritual realm, while hers I guess was soulish (Sorry Trini_Girl!)  Cool place, though.  

I knew this wouldn't end well  !

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=60507.msg1217779#msg1217779 date=1182265816]and what's that suppose to mean?  [/quote]Oh, oh.

Analytical, you've roused a sleeping lioness. I hope your backside is kelvar reinforced.

I beg 0, Trini, only maul am small  ! Or even better, temper justice with mercy.

How are you girl? I trust you are well. The Nairaland religion board has been a bit dry during your absence. I must say I am pleased now that all my girl them, are back  !

God bless
TV

Well said Dru'. Girl, sometimes you just cut. I've missed some of your insights , welcome back!

Now wheres Trini ?

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=60507.msg1216810#msg1216810 date=1182251179]May I ask this question: what do you understand by the distinct mention of all three entities of man in I Thes. 5:23 - "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"?[/quote]I said this.

TV01:
I don't actually think a "Soul" exists seperate from the union of Body & Spirit.

The soul comes into being when there is a union of body and spirit. I did'nt say it was not distinct from them, just that it did not exist on its own separately and apart from them.

The scriptural narrative (as far as I've read - although I stand to be corrected -  only speaks of the creation of the body and the giving of the spirit).

Maybe this analogy (ad-hoc) will help. A car conssts of an engine and a chassis. Seperately nothing happens, bring them together and you have a motor vehicle.

I hope that to some degree answers this also.

Analytical:
@ Bari_kade, to add to your poser above, why will the Holy Ghost inspire this verse as well, if they are not distinct?

Hebrews 4: 12 (KJV)

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

To me the dividing asunder connotes a distinction while the joints and marrow speak of the body.

Analytical:
Hi TV01, long time.  I have been in stealth mode for a while 

Welcome Sir.

Did you see Trini-Girl whilst in stealth-mode? (don't know where it is, but it sure sounds like a cool place ).

God bless
TV

Aproko:
man has spirit. this spirit is covered by a cloak called flesh. soul is just an expression coined by the english language to represent the human entity or being i.e both flesh and spirit.

Tha'ts pretty much where I am on this. I don't actually think a "Soul" exists seperate from the union of Body & Spirit.

God bless
TV