It was Anne Lotz

[Kiffin]

The Husband of one wife literaly in the Greek means "One woman man" or that a pastor is not to be a womanizer. The focus is not so much on being married as it is him not being a Adulteror or Fornicator.

If we say single pastors (never married) are barred from the ministry then the Apostle Paul would have been barred from the pastoring (which is a Shocking thought) or if a pastor's wife dies he suddenly is unqualified since death ends a marriage. The idea is used that Paul was not a pastor ....which is false. Paul was a church planter and did pastor churches when he was in that locale. Paul was also an Apostle..a higher office than the pastorate. To say single pastors are not qualified would make Paul comments in 1 Timothy 3 hypocritical.

Such a idea implies unmarried people are not as mature. A idea that is foreign to the New Testament but common among American evangelicals. It also appears that Timothy was unmarried at the time Paul wrote him. Was Paul telling him to get married so he could be qualified to preach ?

To say single pastors are no qualified misses what Paul is saying in `1 Timothy 3. All the qualifications deal with moral qualifications and not a legalistic set of rules.

 

[AITB]

Mr Curtis, as you wish...

Multimom, I think that Charles Stanley made the mistake of saying he'd step down if he got divorced then changing his mind and not stepping down when he did agree to divorce requested by his wife.

I respect him for not saying 'no' to her just so he could hold onto his ministry.

I felt that those who criticized him after all this happened and said he should step down were rather unkind.

He's always been one of the preachers I liked best. I doubt his preaching is any less effective now - it's probably more effective than ever since trials make us mature.

But - I know that many conservative Christians feel that being divorced and being a Chrisitan leader violates Scripture.

Curiously, I don't think my own church bars leaders who've been divorced per se - it would depend on the circumstances although they tend to be as conservative as it gets on many things

.

It seems to me that since the other person might have been the one to request divorce, and it seems unkind to say "No, you have to stay!" if they don't want to after serious attempts to make the marriage better have tried and failed - it seems to me that in view of those things, being divorced doesn't prove the person in question did anything wrong...

However, if they did do something wrong and that led to divorce, that would be an entirely different situation. Imo.

 

[DHK]

1tim.2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I find that these Scriptures speak for themselves.
DHK

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by DHK:
1tim.2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I find that these Scriptures speak for themselves.
DHK

With all due respect, I don't agree.

I mean, are womensilent in your church?

Do they teach boys? At what age does a boy become unteachable by a woman?

Why is there a board on here with a woman 'teaching' about the Bible - and men are reading it? How come that doesn't violate these verses? (No offense to her - seriously though, how come that's ok?)

Is it true that in that day, 'let the women learn' was innovative? Because generally they weren't allowed to learn? If so, what steps forward are we taking in our day, to move beyond unnecessary prejudice and holding people back, for reasons that are no reason at all?

Were there cultural reasons for not allowing women to teach men, back then, that no longer apply? The culture sure has changed, has it not?

etc etc.

But I know that most people here will think it impossible to understand what the Bible teaches any other way than "women in 2002 may not teach men".

Whatever.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

There are 2 things about Jesus that satan hates most: His birth and His resurrection. There seems to be 3 things that are considered to be a 'can of worms': 1)King James Only; 2)Modesty, including hair & being a keeper@home; 3)Women's role in the church.

I do believe everything the KJBible says about these issues "As far as teaching boys, I have found a good cut-off age to be about 11 or 12. "Yes, I think Mr.Stanley should have stepped down. "I do not find that women are scripturally qualified for ministry offices. I do not even like to see them 'behind the pulpit' singing a "special". "I do not like to hear them say 'amen' in assembly or pray aloud. "I even wonder about my jumping in on these kind of conversations~whether or not I'm outta line; if it's wrong or not? Way before I was ever given this 'puter, I wrote letters-to-the-editor alot, on issues such as KJonly, false doctrine of the Oneness, etc. Was that wrong? I dunno.

If folks say they are 'blessed' when things are 'out of order', then how much more will they be blessed when all is done in devine order? I have listened to much 'modern reasoning' since coming on Board, & all have been without scriptural warrant. The Word of God(KJV) is so-o-o-oo clear! (at least to an old fuddy-duddy like myself

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by AITB:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
1tim.2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I find that these Scriptures speak for themselves.
DHK

With all due respect, I don't agree.
</font>[/QUOTE]Then your argument is with God, not with me. He wrote the Scriptures.
DHK

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AITB:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
1tim.2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I find that these Scriptures speak for themselves.
DHK

With all due respect, I don't agree.
</font>[/QUOTE]Then your argument is with God, not with me. He wrote the Scriptures.
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]With all due respect, I don't argue with God

By the way, did you read my post or did you quit after that one sentence?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by AITB:

By the way, did you read my post or did you quit after that one sentence?

I read your post. Here is a more detailed answer to it.

Quote:
"With all due respect, I don't agree. I mean, are womensilent in your church?"
---What do you mean by "church?" If you mean building, you have the wrong definition. Anyone can speak within the confines of four walls. That's not what defines a church. A church is the people. It is an assembly or congregation of baptized believers who have voluntarily associated themselves together for the purpose of carrying out the two ordinances (baptism by immersion and the Lord's Table), and carrying out the commands of Christ.
Paul was writing to Timothy, the pastor of the church at Ephesus. It was a pastoral epistle. And when the church meets or gathers, yes, the women should keep silent. I am speaking about in the church, not in the building--there is a difference.
"Do they teach boys? At what age does a boy become unteachable by a woman?"
---Look again at the definition of church. It is composed of baptized believers. At what age do most children partake of the Lord's Table? They don't partake of the Lord's Table until they have been saved and baptized. That is when they become members of the church. Before then it is a non-issue. Specific to your question, no they don't teach older boys (old enough to have been baptized).

" Why is there a board on here with a woman 'teaching' about the Bible - and men are reading it? How come that doesn't violate these verses? (No offense to her - seriously though, how come that's ok?) Is it true that in that day, 'let the women learn' was innovative? Because generally they weren't allowed to learn? If so, what steps forward are we taking in our day, to move beyond unnecessary prejudice and holding people back, for reasons that are no reason at all?"
---This board is not a church. It does not have a pastor (though there are many pastors that post here). It is a board, on the internet, in public domain, in cyberspace. It is not a church.
"Were there cultural reasons for not allowing women to teach men, back then, that no longer apply?"
---ABSOLUTELY NONE!

" The culture sure has changed, has it not?" ---Culture changes; Biblical principles do not.
Culture changes; The Bible does not.
"But I know that most people here will think it impossible to understand what the Bible teaches any other way than "women in 2002 may not teach men". Whatever."
---The Bible does not have a feminist agenda.
DHK

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by Kiffin:
The Husband of one wife literaly in the Greek means "One woman man" or that a pastor is not to be a womanizer. The focus is not so much on being married as it is him not being a Adulteror or Fornicator.

If we say single pastors (never married) are barred from the ministry then the Apostle Paul would have been barred from the pastoring (which is a Shocking thought) or if a pastor's wife dies he suddenly is unqualified since death ends a marriage. The idea is used that Paul was not a pastor ....which is false. Paul was a church planter and did pastor churches when he was in that locale. Paul was also an Apostle..a higher office than the pastorate. To say single pastors are not qualified would make Paul comments in 1 Timothy 3 hypocritical.

Such a idea implies unmarried people are not as mature. A idea that is foreign to the New Testament but common among American evangelicals. It also appears that Timothy was unmarried at the time Paul wrote him. Was Paul telling him to get married so he could be qualified to preach ?

To say single pastors are no qualified misses what Paul is saying in `1 Timothy 3. All the qualifications deal with moral qualifications and not a legalistic set of rules.

Hi Kiffin...

I disagree with single pastors, & think the bible supports it by this verse...

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" 1Timothy 3:4&5

To me, that says a pastor needs to demonstrate he can raise & lead a Godly family before he is given a whole flock.

Also, I don't believe Paul was a bishop, pastor, or deacon. He was a missionary. He started churches & left them. He was not an office holder of any church, that I can see.

[ June 14, 2002, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Curtis ]

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by Mr. Curtis:
I disagree with single pastors, & think the bible supports it by this verse...

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" 1Timothy 3:4&5

To me, that says a pastor needs to demonstrate he can raise & lead a Godly family before he is given a whole flock.

Also, I don't believe Paul was a bishop, pastor, or deacon. He was a missionary. He started churches & left them. He was not an office holder of any church, that I can see.

Mr Curtis, with all due respect, I think a more natural way to read a verse like that is not: he must be married with children, but, if he is married with children, his children must be appropriately behaved.

If we were to read 2 Corinthians the same way we'd read "Do not be unequally yoked" as a command that we are all married, rather than saying, if you get married, do not do it in a way that makes you unequally yoked.

You don't believe we all should be married, do you?

Anyway I can't imagine that any requirements for being a church leader would not apply to apostles and church planting missionaries. Paul was clearly in a 'leader role' in the early church, according to what we read in Acts and his letters.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

OK, I'll post it ONE MORE TIME, and everybody follow the bouncing ball.....

Ready ?

"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1Timothy 3:1-5

I seriously don't know how a bible believing Christian can interpret these words to mean ANYTHING ELSE than what they say.

But there will be folks who argue, so be it. Thae apostle Paul also told us people would justify their disobediance.

I'm not saying I'm perfect, but the bible is, right ?

I'm not debating this anymore, we have wasted pages & pages of bandwidth doing it.

BTW, AITB, what does your pastor say about women preachers ? Single men ?

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by DHK:

Originally posted by AITB:
Helen:By the way, did you read my post or did you quit after that one sentence?

DHK:I read your post. Here is a more detailed answer to it.

Quote:
"With all due respect, I don't agree. I mean, are womensilent in your church?"
---What do you mean by "church?" If you mean building, you have the wrong definition. Anyone can speak within the confines of four walls. That's not what defines a church. A church is the people. It is an assembly or congregation of baptized believers who have voluntarily associated themselves together for the purpose of carrying out the two ordinances (baptism by immersion and the Lord's Table), and carrying out the commands of Christ.

Yes, I knew 'church' doesn't mean 'a building', except in metaphor like in Hebrews and Ephesians where God describes his people as a building, metaphorically. Maybe that's in other places too.

Anyway I need more clarity on what you said. Does a couples' Bible study count as 'church'? What about any church service, that doesn't happen to include the Lord's Supper or any baptisms that day?

Are you saying that women can't sing in the choir in a service (let's say a Baptismal one or one where the Lord's Supper is included, to make sure it's 'church') because they must remain silent? Are you saying that a woman may not do the public Bible reading in that kind of service? What does 'silent' mean?

Why did Paul say in 1 Cor 11 that women must pray or prophesy with their heads covered? That isn't silent, is it? Are you saying he must have been talking about occasions that don't count as 'church' - or is he contradicting what you quoted?

In a couples or otherwise mixed Bible study, are women not allowed to say anything? I'm not talking about teaching a mixed group - but are you saying they can't answer a question, say? The men talk and the women are there but may not say a word, at any time?

Paul was writing to Timothy, the pastor of the church at Ephesus. It was a pastoral epistle. And when the church meets or gathers, yes, the women should keep silent. I am speaking about in the church, not in the building--there is a difference.

I know, but does that include Bible studies? And services where there's no baptism or Lord's supper that day?

Does it include other gatherings for believers such as a church picnic?

"Do they teach boys? At what age does a boy become unteachable by a woman?"
---Look again at the definition of church. It is composed of baptized believers. At what age do most children partake of the Lord's Table? They don't partake of the Lord's Table until they have been saved and baptized. That is when they become members of the church.

In my church that's up to the parents. I believe in children partaking of the Lord's supper as children, if they are believers. Why not??? Why would I exclude any believer? I see it as a family-inclusive thing if everyone's a believer. So anyone old enough to come into the adult service, who is a believer, who understand what communion is (at their own level of understanding) can partake of communion. Seems reasonable to me?!

Before then it is a non-issue. Specific to your question, no they don't teach older boys (old enough to have been baptized).

My son is nine; he is baptized; he goes to Sunday school and is taught by women. I don't think many churches prohibit women teaching nine year old boys.

" Why is there a board on here with a woman 'teaching' about the Bible - and men are reading it? How come that doesn't violate these verses? (No offense to her - seriously though, how come that's ok?) Is it true that in that day, 'let the women learn' was innovative? Because generally they weren't allowed to learn? If so, what steps forward are we taking in our day, to move beyond unnecessary prejudice and holding people back, for reasons that are no reason at all?"
---This board is not a church. It does not have a pastor (though there are many pastors that post here). It is a board, on the internet, in public domain, in cyberspace. It is not a church.

With all due respect, I see the distinction as arbitrarily made by you. If you did it so as not to offend the people who run this board, by saying they are going against Scripture, I respect that as a good reason. However, there's nothing in the Bible that says 1 Tim 2 does not apply to Internet discussion boards where adult men and women Christians interact and I think you know that.

"Were there cultural reasons for not allowing women to teach men, back then, that no longer apply?"
---ABSOLUTELY NONE!

You know that for a fact, huh? Are you saying that the culture hasn't changed at all since those days? Or merely asserting, to support your theological assumptions, that it has not changed in that respect?

" The culture sure has changed, has it not?" ---Culture changes; Biblical principles do not.
Culture changes; The Bible does not.

Ok, I agree the Bible hasn't changed. But not everything in it, which relates to practices in local gatherings of believers, in the early church, is necessarily meant to be a 'command' for all time.

"But I know that most people here will think it impossible to understand what the Bible teaches any other way than "women in 2002 may not teach men". Whatever."
---The Bible does not have a feminist agenda.

That depends what you mean by 'feminist' agenda.

The feminist agenda was once to get women the vote. Do you think that Bible is against that? I don't.

 

[Kiffin]

Hi Mr. Curtis,

You said,

Hi Kiffin...

I disagree with single pastors, & think the bible supports it by this verse...

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" 1Timothy 3:4&5

To me, that says a pastor needs to demonstrate he can raise & lead a Godly family before he is given a whole flock.

Also, I don't believe Paul was a bishop, pastor, or deacon. He was a missionary. He started churches & left them. He was not an office holder of any church, that I can see.

Paul was an Apostle. The highest office one can hold and when Paul started churches he was the elder of pastor over that church because it is clear in Peter and John's epistles that whenever the apostles were in a given location they were elders in that church. Paul even pastored the pastors (read Acts 20) 1Timothy 3:4&5 is referring to the fact if the pastor is marriage and if we use your logic in this he would also have to have children and not only that he must prove he can raise them. So Pastors whose wives have no children are disqualified or if their wife dies (since death ends a marriage) he is disqualified.

"Husband of one wife" or literaly greek "one woman man" simply means the pastor is not to be a womanizer not necessarily referring to his marital status. God Bless

[ June 14, 2002, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by Mr. Curtis:
BTW, AITB, what does your pastor say about women preachers ? Single men ?

My pastor? You mean, my church? We have a team of pastors, not just one.

We do not have female pastors because the Bible is interpreted as prohibiting them. I believe we have no problem with single men should they qualify for the lists in the Bible of the characteristics - since we wouldn't read them as you do, as mandating that the man be married and a father.

We do have women on staff who have a lot of responsibility. They are "Directors" not "Pastors".

I was in my senior pastor's Bible study when he taught through 1 Timothy. He said exactly what Kiffin said about it meaning the leader had to be a 'one woman man' and not a womanizer. He even used the 'one woman man' phrase. Were you there, Kiffin? (Just kidding! I guess it must be a common way to explain that passage)

 

[Kiffin]

Didn't you see me there AITB?


I like by the way that your church has a plurality of elders. My church is moving toward that direction also.

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by Kiffin:
Didn't you see me there AITB?


Yeah - I just didn't know which one you were!

I like by the way that your church has a plurality of elders. My church is moving toward that direction also.

Yes, I like it - I think it helps safeguard against a lack of accountability or one person taking the church in a weird direction.

And it doesn't seem to the point where they don't reach consensus. (Which of course gets harder as you add more people who need to agree) So it seems to be well-balanced/the unity of the Spirt prevails...

What we have is a staff of pastors, directors and support staff that are accountable to 10 elders elected by the membership. It's an independent church so it's not accountable to anyone outside our own church - except God

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by AITB:
---This board is not a church. It does not have a pastor (though there are many pastors that post here). It is a board, on the internet, in public domain, in cyberspace. It is not a church.

With all due respect, I see the distinction as arbitrarily made by you. If you did it so as not to offend the people who run this board, by saying they are going against Scripture, I respect that as a good reason. However, there's nothing in the Bible that says 1 Tim 2 does not apply to Internet discussion boards where adult men and women Christians interact and I think you know that.
[/b]

You give me a good laugh at times. First and Second Timothy, and the Book of Titus are pastoral epistles, written to pastors of definite existing churches at that time in history. Other epistles such as First and Second Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Galatians, were all written to existing churches at that time. In the Book of Revelation Jesus writes seven letters to the pastors of seven churches that existed at that time. In the book of Acts Paul went on three missionary journeys and in that period of time established over 100 different churches. God has ordained the local church as an instrument through which he works through in this age. There is no para-church organization that will ever take its place. No organization of any kind can take the place of the local church. God has ordained that individuals should be saved, baptized and become members of local churches, such as they did in Acys chapter two, when they were 3000 were baptized and became members of the church located in the city of Jerusalem.

A church is organized. It has a pastor, or possibly a plurality of pastors. It has servants (or as some may call deacons). It has a commission--the Great Commission. It has two ordinances--Baptism and the Lord's Table. Who is the pastor of the Baptist Board? How many people has he baptized into the Baptist Board? How many in the Baptist Board have gathered together to partake of the Lord's Table? Who are the deacons of the Baptist Board? This is not a church, and I think you know that very well. The conditions set forth in 1Timothy were for local churches, not for cyberspace. They were specifically for the local church, which God ordained to be His institution for all believers to receive instruction, edification, and fellowship. If you are not a member of a Biblical, Bible-believing local church, I believe that you are out of God's will.
DHK

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by DHK:
A church is organized. It has a pastor, or possibly a plurality of pastors. It has servants (or as some may call deacons). It has a commission--the Great Commission. It has two ordinances--Baptism and the Lord's Table. Who is the pastor of the Baptist Board? How many people has he baptized into the Baptist Board? How many in the Baptist Board have gathered together to partake of the Lord's Table? Who are the deacons of the Baptist Board? This is not a church, and I think you know that very well. The conditions set forth in 1Timothy were for local churches, not for cyberspace. They were specifically for the local church, which God ordained to be His institution for all believers to receive instruction, edification, and fellowship. If you are not a member of a Biblical, Bible-believing local church, I believe that you are out of God's will.
DHK

I agree that each believer ought to belong to a local church; that being involved with any parachurch organization, to the extent that a believer is, ought to be in addition to, not instead of, local church membership.

It's not that I can't tell the difference!

My point is, why would the rules about women not apply to parachurch organizations and in fact, any gathering of believers?

Doesn't it seem odd to you that there could be such a serious prohibition on women teaching in one kind of gathering of believers and not in another?

That doesn't make sense to me.

I mean, what could possibly be different, that it would be ok for women to not be silent and even to teach men on a discussion board (say) and not in church?

What about Christian radio? What if men listen to a woman who has a women's ministry? Has she sinned for teaching where men could hear? Have they sinned by listening? Have both sinned? Is that ok because it's 'not in church'?

I don't understand why different rules apply in a place with a pastor, baptism and communion. Could you explain? Is the only reason that women can be other than silent, in believers groups outside of church, that Paul didn't happen to tell us, that his 'silence' and 'no teaching' rules weren't simply meant to apply in church?

Have I asked you this yet - how come Deborah could lead Israel?

 

[Multimom]

DKH you stated that "once baptized" a boy should not be taught by a woman.

I personally have known boys as young as 5 years old who have realized a need for Jesus and have followed him in Baptism. Should these boys now be taught only by men? Check around with some of the men you know for a fact were raised in church by Godly parents and see how young they were when they received Jesus. Then ask them how many of them had male Sunday School teachers after they were saved. I'm sure the ratio will do more than stun you.

1. I don't know very many boys who at the age of 5 do better with a man teaching them which is why most courts won't award custody of a boy that young to a father.

2. If you really hold to that then there are tons of women who must stop teaching Bible to thier homeschooled saved sons.

3. If this is really your heart then the men of your church better get together and stop letting women teach 1st and 2nd grade Sunday School Classes and VBS because they aren't supposed to teach a saved boy. The 3% or so of men teachers in the area of children's minstry better step up to about 80% so that you don't take the chance that a woman would usurp the authority of a saved boy. Sunday School classes and VBS classes better start being divided into saved and unsaved boys and be sure that nothing but men teach the saved boys. Check your volunteer roster next time you request teachers for Sunday School or VBS and see how many men jump in to teach these "saved" boys. I dare say that you won't have enough men to staff even 2 classes let alone the 6 or 8 depending on the ages involved.

4. If my son (now 14, saved at the age of 6) were to ever in his wierdest moment even now, dare to try to usurp me anywhere even at church where I teach both Children's Church and serve as Praise and Worship Leader, he knows there would be serious repercussions. I am his parent and he has no authority over me in any arena ever no matter saved or lost. HE is a boy, not a man and he better not dare tell me to keep silent unless he wants to be in more trouble than he can handle. So you see the very thought that boys that young can't be saved thus making it a non-issue isn't too realistic.

[ June 16, 2002, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Multimom ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by AITB:

I agree that each believer ought to belong to a local church; that being involved with any parachurch organization, to the extent that a believer is, ought to be in addition to, not instead of, local church membership.

It's not that I can't tell the difference!

My point is, why would the rules about women not apply to parachurch organizations and in fact, any gathering of believers?

I am glad that you believe in the importance of belonging to a local church. Not every one does these days. I guess your question is a good one when you put it in that light. But God does make a distinction between local church and para-church organizations. I believe the distinction all has to do with the instruction of the family. Christ is the head of the church, and every man is the head of his house. What better place than the church to teach Biblical principles by example. Paul also taught women should be clothed modestly, that they should submit themselves to their husbands, and the husbands should love their wives. He said that the older women should "teach" the younger women to love their husbands. True love is something you learn. It is miles apart from what the world defines love (lust). If visitors, young Christians, and others, saw all these principles at work in the families of our churches, what a blessing it would be. It is a blessing to see a wife described like Sarah in 1Pet.3:1-6:
3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

In the world there are many corporations all having different rules. The church is God's corporation. We need to abide by His rules.
DHK