Let your women keep silence

I did not ignore your verses PT I agreed you have the verses to put the little ladies in their place but I'm saying my scriptures are as good as yours showing the reverse. I know of work arounds for both sides but in the end this is an apparent contradiction so I make the choice for equality until I know better and I stand by that with scriptures and examples of women in power that one finds throughout scripture. I don't need you to tell me how to receive God's word.

The same goes for men having long hair. Men had long hair in scripture and on occasion it was a sign of Godliness.

everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction Is a teaching role Isaiah. But your good conscience must be adhered to. If you think it is wrong then it is wrong. If I think it's right it's right.

We have no pastor/minister or deacon. Our leadership team is made up of elders who fulfill all the roles between them. It was only necessity that drove the apostles to appoint Stephen to the role he had. The Church leadership is open for adaption to circumstances. Christian shouldn't be hidebound. We are free, we can do as we see fit to run our Church in the best way. We have female members that give sermons.

Watching the girls on the God Channel might drive men to agree that women should shut up but if that is the case then most of the men should as well.

AC 2:17 " `In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
AC 2:18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.

Rev 19:10 ...For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

john.

 

There is nothing trivial about the Word of God. The feminization of men and the masculinization of women is one of the great end times acts of the adversary. Whatever God puts in place, the devil tries to turn upside down. When women take on the role of men and men take on the role of women, then something very important, not trivial, is happening.

 

Well said, Scarlett. And concise, to boot! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Isn't it nice that Baptists don't change...

 

I'm fairly sure Scripture says nothing about wearing pants (Yep! I checked. It's not in my concordance!), but it would be amusing to see the thread, anyway, if only for the legalism to be exposed.

Ed

 

Ah yes. Anyone that has standards that are not as low as your own deserve the label of "legalist". Rather than pants, you might look up breeches or girding or modesty, things like that. There have been plenty of threads on the topic of pants on women, such as these...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33776&highlight=pants+women
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33791&highlight=pants+women
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35912&highlight=pants+women
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36231&highlight=pants+women
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35921&highlight=pants+women
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36359&highlight=pants+women
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36332&highlight=pants+women
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36371
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37523&highlight=pants+women

...if you think there is something that hasn't been covered, I'd encourage you to create a new thread or resurrect one of the preceding that hasn't been closed.

 

Plenty of legalism going around on that topic

 

No, but I'm sure Tim meant it in relative terms. I think the emancipation of women is a serious matter but nothing to get hung about.

From what I see this has not succeeded very well, from my vantage point I still see women pushing the prams and the men not changing the baby. Some of the women confide in me up at my sons school and from what I hear men are still men and their women are still complaining.

Where can I find this dire warning of an end times explosion of peculiar men and women in the bible?

That's right, I think the emancipation of women is not trivial. They can fulfill their divine role in society to a better degree today than 30 years ago. GE 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

I see no difference between men and women in God's order, quite the reverse. It is you that wants things to stay as they became due to the fall. Gen 3:16 ......and he will rule over you.

And the scripture that warns us of this? And the scripture that denies a man the oppotunity of bringing his kids up please. And is it alright for me to play chess against my wife?

I didn't know they wore trousers in those days. Live and learn a? Why don't we copy the Muslims and shove all the women into berkas and have them walk behind us?

john.

 

Greetings!
My first post here and of all things it could be considered to be a flaming topic!

Regarding conscience, it is both the servant and master of an individual, to each person their own. To have a conscience about something is for me to obey but not enforce it on another. Can conscience be trusted to always lead one 'right'? No, because it is the gate keeper of the heart and is subject to our understanding of the Word and our willingness to follow or overrule it with our desires; the law becomes our schoolmaster leading into awareness of our deprivity and need for salvation in Jesus Christ. As I acknowledge my need and my dependance on Him, He freely distributes of the Holy Spirit to bring me to the awareness (consciouness) of His direction in my life both to will and to do: If I refuse to submit, then not only have I dethroned the leadership of Christ Jesus, but I have alowed the searing of my conscience which also hardens my heart against submission to His authority, and the reproof of others who might instruct me.

Now, as pertaining to the silence in the mixed congregation of men and women. We are instructed that all things should be done decently and in order. We are also instructed by Jesus own words to love one another, even as He loves us. ICor13 explains that love most completely. Some things are not worth the disputings, the confusion and division in the body of Christ, particularly when other issues are of greater importance and are not being attended to: particularly the foundations of faith.

Regarding Paul's instruction, I see no contradiction: The wife submits to her husband's authority......he bears the burden of making the wrong or right decisions which affect the provisions and safety of the family, and its participation in the body of Christ. If he (husband) loves his wife as himself and as Christ loves the Church, he will always consider the weight of her opinion and give respect to it, though he choose a different option.

Can a wife in subjection to her husband, on his authority be permitted to speak in the church or to teach? Can the church, itself, as a body, bestow authority (recognition or office) upon one believer as good as another, or is it always first subject to consideration of gender before the spiritual gifts? Are we not all joint heirs with Christ?

You may think me a 'feminist', but quite the contrary, I'm a lady who is widowed. Now, therefore, who is in authority over me if not Christ? And in Christ I have liberty. Does that mean I should upsurp a man's authority? Personally, I would choose not: But, perchance, a void occurred within the local body and no man came forward to accept the responsibility, but God gave me the gifts and calling to fill the void (perhaps temporarilly) , would I be remiss in doing so? Does not 'annointing' take place with confirmation and witnesses? And can one lead, even as a servant to Jesus Christ, if there is no-one following?

I do not see a contridiction in the Pauline epistles: They both are two sides of the same coin: leadership, order, and God's will. If a man wont lead, it doesn't mean God didn't call a man to leadership: If a man wont lead, and a woman is willing to fill the void, is it loving of the body of Christ to judge a particular person or circumstance without conscience to remedy the situation?

I thank God that he has not called me to shepherd a flock, or take responsibility of leadership over others. I would not consider a husband loves me who did not have consideration for my opinion: Submission means he makes the choices and carries the burden of responsibility for the consequences: Respect for him means I honor his choices, talk to him only about my disappointments, and encourage (and bring focus or 'glory') to him in what he does well, and keep silent before others of those things which I might question. We then are servants to each other. Twice Abraham listened to Sarah: Once it was to error, as it broke the challenge of faith that Sarah would deliver the promised son: The second occurrence he was personally directed by God to listen to Sarah and do accordingly to what she said. Others here have mentioned the leadership of women in the OT. Also the NT. If we follow our LORD, he leads us to peace with him and with each other.

 

Women were not emancipated for they were not enslaved. What you call emancipation is in fact slavery. Rather than being keepers of the home as the Bible commands, they are now enslaved to trying to be and act the role of the hunter / gatherer and the head of the household, which is a God reserved role of the man. Rather than her doing what is natural for a woman, in nurturing and raising children, she's out climbing corporate ladders and missing out on the peace and blessings of abiding by God's instructions.

EMANCIPA'TION, n. The act of setting free from slavery, servitude, subjection or dependence; deliverance from bondage or controlling influence; liberation; as the emancipation of slaves by their proprietors; the emancipation of a son among the Romans; the emancipation of a person from prejudices, or from a servile subjection to authority. (Source: Webster's 1828)​

If "emancipation" is so great, why do/did feminists find the Bible and Christianity to be such a stumbling block?

"The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton​

 

Welcome to the board windcatcher and thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. They are appreciated.

BJ

 

Well I cetainly hope things are adequately covered, and I've seen most "pants" cover far better than a lot of dresses or skirts.

BTW, didn't they, both male and female, wear something akin to a tunic in Bible days, and don't Scotsmen traditionally wear something akin to a dress these days? The Hebrew word rendered "breeches'", in the KJV, merely means "hiding" in the sense of "concealing the private parts", from what I can ascertain. It does not specify the manner, in which this is done, as far as I can tell. And in the second place, in every instance, this refers to the Aaronic prieshood and the Levites, where the word "breeches" occurs.

Who is setting the standards, here? It certainly doesn't seem to be Scripture, IMO. All it speaks of is modesty, as far as I can tell.

Ed

P.S. Glad you have the ability to know what "low level" my "standards" reach, seeing we do not know one another, nor have ever conversed, personally.

That is called "legalism"!

 

I have a lovely pair of lavender colored slacks, but since they make me appear masculine, I would like to donate them to Rufus. :laugh:

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I was predestined to say that.

And now, I shall keep silent.:1_grouphug:

 

Pants on a woman do not cover the female form and just because they cover the skin better than some dresses or skirts that some pervert fashion designer came up with, doesn't make them acceptable.

I believe these things were covered in the links I provided and I'm not sure that a discussion about clothing was intended in this thread.

Well, personally, I think people that accuse folks of "legalism" because they espouse a different Biblical interpretation than the "non-legalist" / Sadducee have very shallow arguments. Where is your line and what keeps you from being a "legalist"? Are you alright with mini-skirts, short shorts, lingerie in public? Judging by that other thread you find it funny that 18,000 people would be in public naked so perhaps you are one of those Christian nudists?

 

I disagree. It's not a conscience that should be appealed to, it's a high standard of hermeneutics.

I'm not advocating that churches must have pastors in order to be a true churches. Plurality of elders is what I would consider ideal. And I just don't see women as being given that role.

 

Hello Isaiah.

We have conflicting scriptures.

No but some do and owing to the legalism that is knocking about I thought I'd make mention of it. At least we have no female deacons.

We have one female elder at the moment. If I was at the meeting that voted her in I would have voted for her. She is competent and smart and serves us well, as do the men.
Nothing suits me better than to hold to the eplicit words but I cannot in this case, (1 Tim 2:12), as it goes against other scriptures that are just as explicit, (Gen 1:28), which have shaped my understanding of women's position in relation to me. They are not treated as equal in the world or in the Church, the reins of power are with-held from them. Men are more equal than others.

Can you say why a woman should be quiet apart from the scripture? Can you think of a reason that causes women to be less dependable than men?

john.

 

MT 28:5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: `He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

So the women go to tell the disciples what Jesus had instructed them to instruct the disciples to do and as the women entered the congregation one said, "Jesus...."

Shut up woman." Peter said.

john.

 

When all the men act like women, then you are right there is no difference. But the fact remains that I am more logical than my wife. She will disagree and make a passionate emotional argument against it. When we let passionate emotional arguments decide things for us, then we end up with women in leadership roles, making passionate emotional decisions for us all. Men are more calculating and are more apt to allow facts to outweigh emotions. Just as the man is to be in charge of the woman, your inner man (spirit, reason) is to be in charge of your inner 'woman' (your soul, the realm of emotions). Emotions are good in their proper place and can make good contributions to our decision making process, but they have to be held in check by our reason. Ultimately our reason must be in submission to God's word, and no matter how 'reasonable' it seems to us to go against God's word, even in seemingly trivial matters, we must admit that God's ways are not our ways and are beyond our understanding. The most reasonable thing we can do is submit to God's word.

 

Not sure what you mean by your questions.
Who said women are less dependable?
I'm simply saying that God has given different roles to men and women in the church.
I don't see what Gen. 1:28 offers the discussion.