A question of headship and leadership

[12strings]

Already done that early in this thread.

You have quoted 1 cor. 14 where paul says for women to be silent...however, What you have not done is address the other passages (not 1 cor. 14) that speak of women praying and prophesying, of paul speaking to Nympha.

Also, I notice you keep debating with Annsni even though you apparently don't believe she should even be allowed to express herself on this forum.

 

[agedman]

Women aren't to be led around by the nose either. She is his partner, considering she took the same marriage vows that he did....he didn't do them for her. The man and woman are one flesh in the eyes of God in regards to husband/wife.

Never said she was to be led around by the nose, either. Where in the vows did she say that she would not be following the head of the home? Being one flesh in the eyes of God, has nothing to do with a woman being silent. Paul in effect said that every member has there place in the congregation, and women are not to speak.

Speaking in church, I believe, is in regards to preaching His Word. If they are to remain in complete silence, as you seem to believe, they can not sing, and they surely can't shout praises to Him. The woman is to not preach, neither take his place in the church body. But voting in the business meeting is not usurping his authority either.

Wrong. My wife communicated wonderfully with her eye and body language. She just had to cast it upon our little ones behavior and they responded. She didn't have to have one vocalization. She sang in the choir and with ensemble groups - that is permitted by the Scriptures. She and I would discuss matters of the church politics in our own home, make the decision and then a vote would be cast. The head of the home spoke for the home, just as Christ as our head speaks for us.

 

[convicted1]

Never said she was to be led around by the nose, either. Where in the vows did she say that she would not be following the head of the home? Being one flesh in the eyes of God, has nothing to do with a woman being silent. Paul in effect said that every member has there place in the congregation, and women are not to speak.



Wrong. My wife communicated wonderfully with her eye and body language. She just had to cast it upon our little ones behavior and they responded. She didn't have to have one vocalization. She sang in the choir and with ensemble groups - that is permitted by the Scriptures. She and I would discuss matters of the church politics in our own home, make the decision and then a vote would be cast. The head of the home spoke for the home, just as Christ as our head speaks for us.

Well, you are the one who stated that a woman must remain silent. If she is to be silent, then congregationial singing is a "no no" as well. She can't sing and remain silent simultaenously, you know.


Listen, I am closer to your view than you might think. A woman in no way, shape form, or fashion, can preach. But to say that a woman can't speak(we let the women sing solos at our church) even during prayer requests is a bit much(or I guess you think they can't give out a name during prayer request?). Yes, there are limitations to when and where they can speak, but voting isn't outside their limits.

 

[annsni]

She sang in the choir and with ensemble groups - that is permitted by the Scriptures.

Show me. :flower:

 

[convicted1]

Show me. :flower:

Touche'.....


CRACK!![The sound of a whip]

 

[jaigner]

My wife communicated wonderfully with her eye and body language. She just had to cast it upon our little ones behavior and they responded.

Um, yeah, that's called passive-aggressive. It doesn't teach, just controls. And it teaches little children to seek their parents' approval over all else.

Back to the subject.

A woman in no way, shape form, or fashion, can preach.

Why, convict? Because Paul told the women in a particular 1st-century congregation to sit down and learn? That admonition is in not supposed to be normative or salient for the ages. God calls whom God wills, male and female, to preach the gospel, and the authority of the Bible bears witness to that fact.

Do the women in your church wear hats? I guess they should be doing that, too. And I hope you are good to your slaves.

 

[agedman]

You have quoted 1 cor. 14 where paul says for women to be silent...however, What you have not done is address the other passages (not 1 cor. 14) that speak of women praying and prophesying, of paul speaking to Nympha.

"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. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

So, I assume you agree that the modern church is in violation of this command.

I have already spoken about the prophecy question. But I will recap briefly.

The Scriptures indicate that prophecy was not gender specific.

The Scriptures were not complete and prophecy was an important communication tool used by God to inform man of future events including warnings, and urges to repent.

The Scriptures are complete. As we have the whole revelation of God to man and it is under no "private interpretation" and that the Holy Spirit is given to every believer to guide us into all truth, then it follows that prophecy is not the way God communicates to man in this day.

Therefore there are no men or women prophets - accept they be false.

That who claim that they were given a "special word of God" or some other supernatural illumination outside of the Scriptures and pertaining to the understanding thereof, are false "prophets."

I am sure in my haste that I have left something important out.

 

[convicted1]

Um, yeah, that's called passive-aggressive. It doesn't teach, just controls. And it teaches little children to seek their parents' approval over all else.

Back to the subject.



Why, convict? Because Paul told the women in a particular 1st-century congregation to sit down and learn? That admonition is in not supposed to be normative or salient for the ages. God calls whom God wills, male and female, to preach the gospel, and the authority of the Bible bears witness to that fact.

Do the women in your church wear hats? I guess they should be doing that, too. And I hope you are good to your slaves.

Well, when a woman can be "the HUSBAND of one wife", then look me up(I mean biblically the HUSBAND of one wife).

 

[jaigner]

Well, when a woman can be "the HUSBAND of one wife", then look me up(I mean biblically the HUSBAND of one wife).

Again, that message was to a particular people at a particular time. We can learn from it today that elders/leaders in the church should be faithful spouses, but that does not at all indicate that leaders, for all time and in all places, must be men.

Think about the historical context here. Women were only beginning to be considered anything more than property. The subject didn't come up because, well, it didn't need to.

 

[convicted1]

Again, that message was to a particular people at a particular time. We can learn from it today that elders/leaders in the church should be faithful spouses, but that does not at all indicate that leaders, for all time and in all places, must be men.

Think about the historical context here. Women were only beginning to be considered anything more than property. The subject didn't come up because, well, it didn't need to.

Well, Brother, God is immutable, and so is His Word. The Word doesn't change throughout history. The husband of one wife is as good now, as it was when Apostle Paul wrote it.

 

[agedman]

No, you haven't shown me where the woman has no say in the church. Yes, you said that the woman should be silent in the church service (with regards to learning) but where does it say that she has no say in how the church is run? Remember that Paul said "hi" to Nympha and the church that meets in her house. I'd guess she had something to say about that church, wouldn't you? Paul wrote Philemon to a woman - so I guess she also had something to say about the church as well.

Actually, Paul wrote Philemon to the church and addressed it to the head of the home and his wife as well as to the church that meet at their house.

Where did you think that Philemon was a woman? I would be a bit cautious of any single man calling a woman his "dearly beloved" unless they were in a most serious relationship. Perhaps Paul was. I doubt it, though.

I never said she didn't have a say in how the church is run. In fact, just the opposite. She is to petition the husband (and a godly husband will listen to a godly wife) and he is to present a united home decision to the church. That is the example set by Christ being the head of the church and the man being the head of the home.

 

[jaigner]

Well, Brother, God is immutable, and so is His Word. The Word doesn't change throughout history. The husband of one wife is as good now, as it was when Apostle Paul wrote it.

You're right. It doesn't change, and it is entirely true and useful for us today, but it still has to be taken in its historical context, otherwise it doesn't mean anything to anyone. It's not in a vacuum.

So "husband of one wife" still helps us understand what we need to look for in the character of leaders, and that is faithfulness. Again, it would not have made sense to those people to tell them "wife of one husband," since they would not likely have considered a woman for church leadership at the time. The message was directly toward male believers.

God spoke through the apostles to those churches, and his message to them was a specific one for their time and place.

We still can learn from those. They teach us about God and about being the Church, but just as women don't need to cover their heads anymore,

 

[agedman]

Show me. :flower:

"The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their manservants and their maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and they had two hundred forty and five singing men and singing women."

One example given of women participating in singing in the assembly.

Touché ?

Is that supposed to mean that the standard set by the Scriptures is not applicable?

 

[agedman]

We still can learn from those. They teach us about God and about being the Church, but just as women don't need to cover their heads anymore,

Really?

Where did the Scriptures recant that women's heads shouldn't be covered.

Oh, I see that you think there should be a shaw, scarf, or some other physical head covering!

Not - in the context Paul is talking about women who would shave their heads balled or perhaps cut it short as a man's hair. For he clearly states that the hair is her covering and it is a shame for a man to be wearing his hair like a woman's.

Again it is a matter of not age or convenience or even what is culturally acceptable.

It is the Word of God - and Christ has not even the slightest "shadow of turning."

 

[annsni]

Well, when a woman can be "the HUSBAND of one wife", then look me up(I mean biblically the HUSBAND of one wife).

I agree with you on this!

And as for the "that was for a particular time", I disagree completely because there is nothing in the text that even infers that.

1 Timothy 2 clearly points back to the creation order.

1 Timothy 3 states "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. " I don't see any indication that this was only for that one church but instead for the household of God.

Titus doesn't show any limit of that time either.

 

[annsni]

Actually, Paul wrote Philemon to the church and addressed it to the head of the home and his wife as well as to the church that meet at their house.

Where did you think that Philemon was a woman? I would be a bit cautious of any single man calling a woman his "dearly beloved" unless they were in a most serious relationship. Perhaps Paul was. I doubt it, though.

Philemon 1 states: "Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved fellow worker and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house:"

Who's wife was Apphia? Maybe she was one of the men's sisters.

I never said she didn't have a say in how the church is run. In fact, just the opposite. She is to petition the husband (and a godly husband will listen to a godly wife) and he is to present a united home decision to the church. That is the example set by Christ being the head of the church and the man being the head of the home.

I'm still waiting for Biblical proof.

 

[convicted1]

I agree with you on this!

And as for the "that was for a particular time", I disagree completely because there is nothing in the text that even infers that.

1 Timothy 2 clearly points back to the creation order.

1 Timothy 3 states "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. " I don't see any indication that this was only for that one church but instead for the household of God.

Titus doesn't show any limit of that time either.

God's meaning was the same then, as it is now. Now, if anyone wants to sit under a female preacher's teachings, go for it. As for me, I'd say, "C Ya later."

 

[jaigner]

It is the Word of God - and Christ has not even the slightest "shadow of turning."

It is ridiculous to even assert that I'm disputing this. You're simply not going through the process of interpretation.

 

[annsni]

"The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their manservants and their maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and they had two hundred forty and five singing men and singing women."

One example given of women participating in singing in the assembly.

Touché ?

Is that supposed to mean that the standard set by the Scriptures is not applicable?

Umm - that has nothing to do with the church. That was how many people returned from exile. Try in context dear.

 

[jbh28]

Hopefully this will still be active when I get done with work. I'm too busy to respond in too much detail.

In I Cor 11, we have a great passage about headship. The head of the wife is the husband. The head of the husband is Christ. The head of Christ is God. The passage is all about verse 3. Paul will continue on this subject. The wearing of hats(actually it was a veil and not a hat) isn't required today because that's not our custom. Paul's point here is not to give fashion advice to the women but about the headship. Women should look like women and men should look like men. At that time, women wore veils and so Paul referenced that. Women have longer hair than men. How long and how short? The passage doesn't say, but that's how every society has done it.

As far as submission goes, Paul transcends culture with verse 12 in reference to the creation of man and women in Genesis. So we cannot say that submission was a thing of culture like we do that hats.