Gender Roles, the home and the Local Church

[Wormwood]

In order not to derail the thread on homosexuality, this thread has started to explore the issue of gender roles in the local church. Should any roles exist? Did the work of Christ eliminate all gender distinctions as they relate to roles of leadership or submission? What does it mean that there is "no longer male nor female?" How should we understand 1 Timothy 2:1-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40? How should we understand Eph. 5:22-24 and 1 Peter 3:1-6? Is our push for egalitarianism in the church and home more driven by a Western, rights-driven culture or is it guided by the work of Christ?

 

[Wormwood]

junobet,

I have read through the article you provided. Thank you for sharing it. I enjoyed it very much and felt it was very well written. I think the author starts off very well. I think they hit the nail on the head regarding the head covering issue as being a cultural expression of a greater principle and they explain that very nicely. As for the other sections, though it was well written, I disagree with some of the author's conclusions. I will quote sections and offer a reply as to where I think the author is in error:

If Christ is God, then to say that Christ's head is God is not to set up a distinct hierarchy of authority, in which two separate entities are ordered in a dominant! subordinate pattern, for that would be to artificially separate what is actually the same. (Indeed, this misunderstanding is the classic christo logical heresy of subordinationism.) If this is the basis upon which Paul instructs us to understand Christ as head of man and man as head of woman, then hierarchical authority cannot be the relationship Paul is describing. Rather, Paul is making a point about identity; moreover, Paul is describing a relationship in which identity is intertwined such that there is virtually no distinction between one and the other. This is fascinating not only for what this means for the man/woman relationship, but in regard to the man/Christ pairing as well

I think the author really misses Paul's point here. First, Paul uses terms that highlight role distinctions regarding subordination and authority. This would seem curious if his point is that there is supposed to be no role distinctions. Furthermore, his premise is way off with regards to subordinationism. Those who argue for role distinctions do not do so on the basis that women do not share the same imago dei as men. This argument is based on a false premise. As a result, subordinationism is not a concern here. No one is arguing that women are created inferior and thus the conclusion that Christ is inferior to God is also a false comparison. Rather, Christ is equal to God the Father, but fulfilled a "role" of submission to secure our salvation. In the same way, though women are created equal and are equal participants of salvation and heirs in Christ, their function in the church must be understood as acting out a role and is not based on ontological inferiority.

Paul's reference to man being made first has to do with creative purpose and order, not spiritual superiority/inferiority. I agree with the author that Paul negates this concept as he reverses the roles and shows that, also, men come from women. However, the author goes on to suggest that this concept reversal then suggests that Paul is now negating everything he has previously affirmed!

The author states,

For if man and woman are equally essential to the other, and both come from God, then there is no difference in status between a praying and prophesying woman, and a praying and prophesying man.

It seems the author thinks Paul is basically saying, " “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven" but...since men are born from women, "in the Lord" these distinctions dont matter so men and women can pray and prophesy however they want! Contextually this makes no sense. The author is basically suggesting that Paul affirms something only to deny it a few verses later.

The author seems to understand the position they are in with such a flip-flop and even notes as much. Yet they conclude that Paul's reference to "nature itself" is merely an appeal to cultural practices in the end for Paul. Yet this still seems to ignore the elephant in the room, and that is that Paul begins the basis of his argument for the order of Christ, men and women. "Nature itself" is God's design and the very appeal Paul is making in the beginning. Nature is not contrary to God as if the two are speaking of two different ways of viewing life. God is the architect of nature, and that is clearly that to which Paul is referring.

So, in sum, I dont think we have to assert that if we accept Paul's statement at face value that women are demeaned or seen as not made in the imago dei. Rather, Paul shows clearly that role definitions are NOT the same as spiritual inferiority. Instead, it seems Paul is clearly arguing that women are to be in submissive roles, but "in the Lord" we must understand that the submissive role is not an indicator of lesser value or worth (just as Christ is not of lesser worth than God).

Anyway, thanks for the article. It was a good read, but I think the hermeneutical principles are a bit lacking in the end result.

 

[junobet]

In order not to derail the thread on homosexuality, this thread has started to explore the issue of gender roles in the local church. Should any roles exist? Did the work of Christ eliminate all gender distinctions as they relate to roles of leadership or submission? What does it mean that there is "no longer male nor female?" How should we understand 1 Timothy 2:1-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40? How should we understand Eph. 5:22-24 and 1 Peter 3:1-6? Is our push for egalitarianism in the church and home more driven by a Western, rights-driven culture or is it guided by the work of Christ?

Hi there Wormwood,
let's go for another controversial but amicable discussion then!

A: "Should any roles exist?"

Of course roles should exist. We should each serve the Lord according to the gifts He has given us. (1 Cor. 12)
[SIZE=medium]However, it is wrong to attribute certain roles and gifts to certain genders. To speak in the known clichés: A woman who is good at repairing cars should repair cars, a man who is good at baking cakes, should bake cakes, and whoever is called by Christ into pastoral care should become a pastor[/SIZE].
​
B: "Did the work of Christ eliminate all gender distinctions as they relate to roles of leadership or Submission?"

My answer would be yes and no:

The work of Christ as described in the NT certainly challenged the gender distinctions in Jesus’ time:
Women get far more mention in the NT than what is typical for other writings of that era and their overall ‘press’ is rather positive (especially when compared to the press Christ’s male disciples get, who for the most part come across as a bunch of idiots, who never get what Jesus is driving at ).

Jesus taught women when most Rabbis would not have admitted female students. (Lk 10:38-42). We are told that women were among His disciples (Lk 8:1-3; Mt 12:46-50).
Rather than telling the woman with chronic bleeding off for defiling Him by touching His garment, as a pious Pharisee would have done, He publicly healed her and praised her faith. (Lk 8:43-48)
He calls a woman “daughter of Abraham”, when it seems that most of His contemporaries only saw the “sons of Abraham” as important. (Lk 13:10-17)
To him wives weren’t just amenities that you could use and discard as you pleased, but “one flesh” with their husbands. (Mt 19:1-12)
...
And even though women weren’t deemed proper witnesses at the time He chose women to witness His resurrection. Which is why Mary Magdalene and Co. are still thought of as "apostle of the apostles".
And of course the New Testament itself indicates that women took on leading roles in the early church: Lydia, who had her house baptized (Acts 16:11-15); Prisca, whom Paul calls a fellow-worker in Christ Jesus (Rom 16:3), Phoebe, who was a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae and a patron of many including Paul (Rom 16:1-2), Tryphaena and Tryphosa and Persis, who “worked hard in the Lord” (Rom 16:12), Nympha, who had a house church in Laodicea (Col. 4:15) and Junia, who was “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom 16:7). (With most modern translations being based on the latest edition of Nestle-Alands “Novum Testamentum Graece”, one has to have a rather antiquated one if it still has a Junius rather than a Junia: It was already a standard example for a scribe’s presuppositions influencing his transcription of manuscule into minuscule text back in the day when I had to sweat over textual criticism)

All that said: while I firmly believe that Christ is not into gender distinctions, of course history of church shows He did not eliminate them. With the church becoming more and more entangled in the ways of the (then patriarchal) world it comes as no surprise that over long periods of time it deevaluated women just as much as it disobeyed His command not to have rulers and high officials exercising authority. (Mt 20:25-28)


C: "What does it mean that there is "no longer male nor female?""

The same as “neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free”: All of us are “God’s children” (Gal 3:26-29). God shows no favouritism (Rom 2:11) and neither should we (James 2:9). As I already told you, there’s a subversive element in the belief that God loves all His children the same. What this belief does to me is that I can no longer see another person as my inferior, be it for reasons of ethnicity, class or gender, or for that matter - as elaborated in our previous discussion - sexual orientation.


D: "How should we understand 1 Timothy 2:1-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40? How should we understand Eph. 5:22-24 and 1 Peter 3:1-6?"

You need to keep in mind that these letters were written to specific people at a specific time with specific problems in their churches. If we don’t pay attention to context - for example the young widows that caused all kinds of havoc in Timothy’s church (1 Tim 5:11-13) - we might easily end up thinking that women get saved via childbirth. To get a more complete picture we need to look at 1 Cor. 11:5, 1 Cor. 11:11-12, Acts 2:17, Acts 21:9, Rom. 5:12-21, Rom 16:1 … It doesn’t seem as if it was a general rule for women in the early church to shut up and as if Paul thought the fall was Eve’s fault alone.

For more see next post

E: "Is our push for egalitarianism in the church and home more driven by a Western, rights-driven culture or is it guided by the work of Christ?"

I think my answer is obvious. Our 'rights-driven' Western culture with it's idea that "all men are created equal ...(and) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is very much influenced by Christian thought. (And yes, not being a hardcore feminist I don't need an extra mention for women here, I hope nor do you.)

 

[junobet]

junobet,

I have read through the article you provided. Thank you for sharing it. I enjoyed it very much and felt it was very well written. I think the author starts off very well. I think they hit the nail on the head regarding the head covering issue as being a cultural expression of a greater principle and they explain that very nicely. As for the other sections, though it was well written, I disagree with some of the author's conclusions. I will quote sections and offer a reply as to where I think the author is in error:


I think the author really misses Paul's point here. First, Paul uses terms that highlight role distinctions regarding subordination and authority. This would seem curious if his point is that there is supposed to be no role distinctions. Furthermore, his premise is way off with regards to subordinationism. Those who argue for role distinctions do not do so on the basis that women do not share the same imago dei as men. This argument is based on a false premise. As a result, subordinationism is not a concern here. No one is arguing that women are created inferior and thus the conclusion that Christ is inferior to God is also a false comparison. Rather, Christ is equal to God the Father, but fulfilled a "role" of submission to secure our salvation. In the same way, though women are created equal and are equal participants of salvation and heirs in Christ, their function in the church must be understood as acting out a role and is not based on ontological inferiority.

Paul's reference to man being made first has to do with creative purpose and order, not spiritual superiority/inferiority. I agree with the author that Paul negates this concept as he reverses the roles and shows that, also, men come from women. However, the author goes on to suggest that this concept reversal then suggests that Paul is now negating everything he has previously affirmed!

The author states,


It seems the author thinks Paul is basically saying, " “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven" but...since men are born from women, "in the Lord" these distinctions dont matter so men and women can pray and prophesy however they want! Contextually this makes no sense. The author is basically suggesting that Paul affirms something only to deny it a few verses later.

The author seems to understand the position they are in with such a flip-flop and even notes as much. Yet they conclude that Paul's reference to "nature itself" is merely an appeal to cultural practices in the end for Paul. Yet this still seems to ignore the elephant in the room, and that is that Paul begins the basis of his argument for the order of Christ, men and women. "Nature itself" is God's design and the very appeal Paul is making in the beginning. Nature is not contrary to God as if the two are speaking of two different ways of viewing life. God is the architect of nature, and that is clearly that to which Paul is referring.

So, in sum, I dont think we have to assert that if we accept Paul's statement at face value that women are demeaned or seen as not made in the imago dei. Rather, Paul shows clearly that role definitions are NOT the same as spiritual inferiority. Instead, it seems Paul is clearly arguing that women are to be in submissive roles, but "in the Lord" we must understand that the submissive role is not an indicator of lesser value or worth (just as Christ is not of lesser worth than God).

Anyway, thanks for the article. It was a good read, but I think the hermeneutical principles are a bit lacking in the end result.

Funnily enough you just pretty much made the classical ‘Junia(s)-mistake’: the author of the article I linked is a she.

However, I’m glad you found and took the time to read the article and very glad that you enjoyed it.

As I see it the author considers 1 Cor. 11 to have more of a dialectical approach with Paul weighing his own theological arguments or even just rephrasing arguments the Corinthian church has made and then answering them. Hence the apparent contradictions within the Biblical text. And it is worth noting that in such approach it’s usually the last argument that carries the most weight.

Personally I think the points Jennifer Thweatt-Bates raises are well worth pondering. In fact they were already pondered by Augustine, when he tried to consolidate 1 Cor. 11 with Genesis, Galatians 3:28 and the Christian view of Trinity, in which Christ and the Father are of one essence. - And whilst Augustine’s final conclusion is that the imago dei is to be found in the spiritual mind/rational soul that men and women share, up to a point he does indeed argue from 1 Cor. 11:7-10 that women do not share the same imago dei as men. (On The Trinity, Book XII, Chapter 7).

If Christ is God it follows that He submits Himself to Himself. And in Christ God submits himself to us. In serving each other we serve Him. Submission in Christianity is reciprocal: your wife is called to submit herself to you, just as you are called to love her, which means you will submit yourself to her.

As for nature: as Paul himself points us to, nature has it that both men and women can grow long hair (1. Cor. 11:14). So he probably tells the Corinthians exactly what you tell your congregation: hair-styles are cultural, not divine. And it may well be that this indicates that his conclusion concerning the previously mentioned ideas about headship and Submission is they are pretty much nonsense. I have no idea whether that is the right reading of the text or not, but the beauty is: Paul leaves it for the readership to decide. (1 Cor. 11:13)

 

[Wormwood]

Funnily enough you just pretty much made the classical ‘Junia(s)-mistake’: the author of the article I linked is a she.

Did I? I referred to the author as "the author" and "they" because I was uncertain of the gender. I do not believe I ever referenced them as a "he." If so, it was a slip, not an assumption.

Hence the apparent contradictions within the Biblical text. And it is worth noting that in such approach it’s usually the last argument that carries the most weight.

Well I think its a pretty poor argument that Paul contradicts himself in the span of a few sentences and his last sentence in this confused babble happens to be the most likely what he really meant. I think its a much more logical approach to suggest that Paul is supporting gender distinctions in church leadership while dismissing the idea that women are not created in the Imago Dei. That approach, very simply explains why Paul argues for head-covering as a sign of submission, while also affirming the fact that men are just as dependent on women in God's creative scheme as women are on men. Thus, his point is that women are to be submissive to men, but that submission does NOT mean they do not bear the same Imago Dei. Which also makes sense of his statements in 1 Tim 3 as well as his claims in Galatians that in Christ we are equal heirs and God shows no favoritism. To suggest that role distinctions indicates God "shows favoritism" is absurd. Does God show the president of the United States "favoritism" because of his position? Are the rich given "favoritism" because they have more moeny and influence than the poor? No, societal roles do not define divine favoritism. Neither do roles in the local church. I think any hermeneutical approach that suggests the reader has more wits about them than the inspired author is problematic...to say the least.

Submission in Christianity is reciprocal: your wife is called to submit herself to you, just as you are called to love her, which means you will submit yourself to her.

Show me one place in the Scriptures where submission is reciprocal. The word submission, hupotasso, is a military term that implies a lower rank. If submission means to place oneself under the authority of another of superior rank, then it, by nature of the very word itself, cannot be reciprocal. If that is the case, you should submit to your children (if you have any) as they submit to you. Moreover, Christ should submit to us, the Church, as we submit to Christ. Such a notion is contrary to both the language and sound reason.

As for nature: as Paul himself points us to, nature has it that both men and women can grow long hair (1. Cor. 11:14). So he probably tells the Corinthians exactly what you tell your congregation: hair-styles are cultural, not divine. And it may well be that this indicates that his conclusion concerning the previously mentioned ideas about headship and Submission is they are pretty much nonsense. I have no idea whether that is the right reading of the text or not, but the beauty is: Paul leaves it for the readership to decide. (1 Cor. 11:13)

Well, I think even the author in the article would disagree with you on the first statement. As far as the second part, I dont think Paul is "leaving it up to the readership." I think he is laying down an ultimatum. Essentially he is saying, "You do what you think is right, but God's churches do not approach the issue any other way." In essence, he is saying, "Its fine if you want to reject the concept of submission, but all of God's churches accept it." Thus, the implication is, if you want to be one of the churches of God, then you will accept this understanding of creation and submission.

 

[junobet]

Well I think its a pretty poor argument that Paul contradicts himself in the span of a few sentences and his last sentence in this confused babble happens to be the most likely what he really meant.

I don’t mean to come across as condescending, especially since I’m certainly not the brightest bulb myself. But I’m beginning to get the impression, you don’t know what “dialectic” means. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis – ring a bell?
As both I and the article’s author stressed, this is just one possible reading of the passage. Basically this reading could have supported your argument in the other thread. Seeing that you chose not to go for it, leaves you with the problem of measuring with different measurements when it comes to how literally you interpret Biblical commands.

Show me one place in the Scriptures where submission is reciprocal.

​

[SIZE=12pt]“[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]and you will submit to one another out of reverence for the Messiah.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]" (Eph. 5:21)[/SIZE]

The word submission, hupotasso, is a military term that implies a lower rank.

I have an inkling you are not among those who think Paul may not have been a proper Trinitarian yet. But if Paul saying that “God is the head of the Messiah” indicates hierarchy to you, you are probably a less orthodox Trinitarian than I am. According to the Gospel of John Christ said: "I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30) According to Paul so are wife and husband (Eph. 5:28).

If submission means to place oneself under the authority of another of superior rank, then it, by nature of the very word itself, cannot be reciprocal. If that is the case, you should submit to your children (if you have any) as they submit to you. Moreover, Christ should submit to us, the Church, as we submit to Christ. Such a notion is contrary to both the language and sound reason.

Alas, I don’t have any children, but I frequently babysit for my neighbours. From what I see they very much submit themselves to their children. Ever since the lovely little blighters were born, taking care of them is what my neighbours life is centered around and their own interests come last.

And of course Christ submits Himself to us. Not only did He wash His disciples’ feet, He even died for His friends (John 13, John 15). If you find this notion against sound reason, I’m afraid you are in company with the Greeks (1 Cor. 1:22-23). ​

Well, I think even the author in the article would disagree with you on the first statement. As far as the second part, I dont think Paul is "leaving it up to the readership." I think he is laying down an ultimatum. Essentially he is saying, "You do what you think is right, but God's churches do not approach the issue any other way." In essence, he is saying, "Its fine if you want to reject the concept of submission, but all of God's churches accept it." Thus, the implication is, if you want to be one of the churches of God, then you will accept this understanding of creation and Submission.
​

That is the implication you see, whilst happily declaring the command that women ought to cover their hair as merely cultural.

But I fear that in your views on female submission/male authority - probably without even being aware of it - you still read Paul very much through a Tertullian ‘pater familias’ lense rather than through the lense of the Holy Spirit. Remember what Christ said to His disciples when they started arguing who is the greatest among them?
“But Jesus, knowing their inner thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he told them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me, because the one who is least among all of you is the one who is greatest.” (Luke 9:47+48)

 

[StanJ]

In order not to derail the thread on homosexuality, this thread has started to explore the issue of gender roles in the local church. Should any roles exist? Did the work of Christ eliminate all gender distinctions as they relate to roles of leadership or submission? What does it mean that there is "no longer male nor female?" How should we understand 1 Timothy 2:1-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40? How should we understand Eph. 5:22-24 and 1 Peter 3:1-6? Is our push for egalitarianism in the church and home more driven by a Western, rights-driven culture or is it guided by the work of Christ?

There is no doubt that there are roles for everybody in the church as Paul readily identifies in 1st Corinthians 12.
More than anything else, in my opinion, the scriptures above only relate to the fact that everybody is equal before God. Of course I think that has always been the case but in the church, or at least under the Old Covenant, that was not always the case. In my opinion if God sees everybody as equal, then everybody has an equal opportunity to fulfill a role, and under the New Covenant that role is whatever God calls us to be. There is no doubt in my mind that egalitarianism is alive and well under the New Covenant.

 

[Wormwood]

But I’m beginning to get the impression, you don’t know what “dialectic” means. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis – ring a bell?

I do know what the term means. If you understood Koine Greek, you would know that there is nothing in this section that indicates Paul is using such rhetorical devices.

“Θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός.” (1 Corinthians 11:3, NA27)

Paul says, "But I desire you to understand..." Then he goes on to proclaim that the head of man is Christ and the head of woman is man, etc.

You see, junobet, when Paul employs the kind of rhetorical devices you suggest, the Greek tips us off to the fact (unlike the English). In the Greek, Paul constructs statements in a way that can imply a negative answer. In such cases where dialectic rhetorical devices are used mey subjunctives are used to imply a negative answer. That is not the case here. Rather, it is very clear that Paul is intending to instruct the Corinthains and "desires" they understand this truth he is sharing with them.

[SIZE=12pt]“[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]and you will submit to one another out of reverence for the Messiah.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]" (Eph. 5:21)[/SIZE]

You are mistaken if you think this is reciprocal. The context of Eph. 5 shows how Christians are to submit to one another. Wives submitting to husbands, slaves submitting to masters, children submitting to parents, etc. This is not teaching we all submit to one another in a reciprocal fashion. One another does not always imply a reciprocal behavior. In Revelation we read that the people were killing "one another." This does not mean each person was killing the person who was killing them. No, some were doing the killing and others were dying. We have to allow the context to determine if something is reciprocal or not. Clearly Eph. 5 is teaching how this submission to one another should be played out and the following context shows anything but reciprocal submission (unless you think parents should submit to children and Christ should submit to the church!).

There is no doubt that there are roles for everybody in the church as Paul readily identifies in 1st Corinthians 12.
More than anything else, in my opinion, the scriptures above only relate to the fact that everybody is equal before God. Of course I think that has always been the case but in the church, or at least under the Old Covenant, that was not always the case. In my opinion if God sees everybody as equal, then everybody has an equal opportunity to fulfill a role, and under the New Covenant that role is whatever God calls us to be. There is no doubt in my mind that egalitarianism is alive and well under the New Covenant.

Stan, I agree we are all equal. I would simply argue that because a person has a prominent role in government does not mean God sees them as having more value (consider Jesus' submission to Pilate's authority). A submissive role does not mean a person has less value. In fact, often those who are in the roles of submission are given special protection by God, and prominence (the first will be last, the last, first). After all, he is a God of the widow and orphan and it is the meek who inherit the earth. Submission is a grand term in the Bible and something that Christians should strive to embrace, as did their Lord...not a negative term that implies lesser value. We should be eager to submit and take up the cross and die to ourselves to serve others. When God says, "In this relationship, I want you to submit" we should be eager to do so as we are reflecting the character of Jesus in those acts of submission and death to self.

 

[StanJ]

Stan, I agree we are all equal. I would simply argue that because a person has a prominent role in government does not mean God sees them as having more value (consider Jesus' submission to Pilate's authority). A submissive role does not mean a person has less value. In fact, often those who are in the roles of submission are given special protection by God, and prominence (the first will be last, the last, first). After all, he is a God of the widow and orphan and it is the meek who inherit the earth. Submission is a grand term in the Bible and something that Christians should strive to embrace, as did their Lord...not a negative term that implies lesser value. We should be eager to submit and take up the cross and die to ourselves to serve others. When God says, "In this relationship, I want you to submit" we should be eager to do so as we are reflecting the character of Jesus in those acts of submission and death to self.

Sorry, not having read the whole thread I didn't realize we were talking about government but I agree with you and that submission is something that we are all admonished by scripture to do. Paul says submit yourselves one to another. There is no doubt in my mind that even in a pastoral role, the pastor has to submit to certain people in his congregation who would be considered his spiritual superiors and/or mentors.

 

[junobet]

I do know what the term means. If you understood Koine Greek, you would know that there is nothing in this section that indicates Paul is using such rhetorical devices.

“Θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός.” (1 Corinthians 11:3, NA27)

Paul says, "But I desire you to understand..." Then he goes on to proclaim that the head of man is Christ and the head of woman is man, etc.

You see, junobet, when Paul employs the kind of rhetorical devices you suggest, the Greek tips us off to the fact (unlike the English). In the Greek, Paul constructs statements in a way that can imply a negative answer. In such cases where dialectic rhetorical devices are used mey subjunctives are used to imply a negative answer. That is not the case here. Rather, it is very clear that Paul is intending to instruct the Corinthains and "desires" they understand this truth he is sharing with them.

If you know what the term means you know that the suggestion was not that Paul contradicts himself. I’m sorry, but English or Greek doesn’t make a difference here.
From our previous discussion I take it you probably won’t find the way I tend to read these texts convincing either: Just like in his views on slavery in his views on gender/family relations Paul was not much of a social revolutionary, but (up to a point, which was idol worship) wanted Christians to accept the rules of the society they lived in, whilst at the same time sowing subversive new ideas. In this case the new idea in Eph. 5 is not that wifes must submit to their husbands - that was a given in 1th century Roman society. The subversive idea is that husbands must love their wives rather than viewing them as a mere commodity. Whenever Paul elevates women he doesn’t follow 1th century mainstream thought. That is what would have made his original audience listen up and that is what should get our attention. And yes, when you love somebody – at least in my emotional world - you submit to them. That Paul connects the two is obvious in that he clearly isn’t a fan of begrudging/merely outward submission (Eph. 6:5-9).
The way you read these texts is still nebulous to me. When Augustine – by no means a feminist - comes to the conclusion that women, too, are made in the image of God, he does that on the basis of Genesis 1:27-28 and explains the contradiction he sees to 1 Cor. 11:7 via the assumption that “the Apostle Paul, when speaking outwardly of the sex of male and female, figured the mystery of some more hidden truth” (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130112.htm). And Eph. 5:32 seems to point to that very direction. But contrary to Augustine (who thought the head covering referred to “a hidden sacrament”), you seem to read the text quite literally when it comes to gender relations, whilst still accepting that women, too, are made in the image of God and happily discarding the plain instruction for women to cover their head as a merely cultural thing. Why? Did you ever take into consideration that your very own cultural views and traditions may have affected your reading?

You are mistaken if you think this is reciprocal. The context of Eph. 5 shows how Christians are to submit to one another. Wives submitting to husbands, slaves submitting to masters, children submitting to parents, etc. This is not teaching we all submit to one another in a reciprocal fashion. One another does not always imply a reciprocal behavior. In Revelation we read that the people were killing "one another." This does not mean each person was killing the person who was killing them. No, some were doing the killing and others were dying. We have to allow the context to determine if something is reciprocal or not. Clearly Eph. 5 is teaching how this submission to one another should be played out and the following context shows anything but reciprocal submission (unless you think parents should submit to children and Christ should submit to the church!).

Sorry, I don’t eat that. Of course “killing one another” implies that all the involved parties kill. And when my husband and I promised to love one another, we meant that I shall love him and he shall love me. If you insist that “ἀλλήλοις” doesn’t indicate reciprocity you clearly are in denial: http://biblehub.com/greek/alle_lois_240.htm
And I’m a bit surprised you find the thought that parents submit to their children and Christ submits to the church so outlandish. Wasn’t it you who in the other thread said that to submit was to imitate Christ?
Of course contrary to me you seem to see submission/authority as an altogether hierarchical thing. I’m still not quite sure how you square the claims that your biological sex somehow gives you authority over your wife/that women should not be allowed into certain church offices with Mt 20:25-28 where Christ asks His disciples not to have worldly hierarchical structures among them, but to exceed each other at serving. Maybe it would help if you could give examples how your notion of female submission/male headship works out in your practice. You don’t strike me as the kind of person who bosses his wife around. Do you?

 

[Wormwood]

If you know what the term means you know that the suggestion was not that Paul contradicts himself. I’m sorry, but English or Greek doesn’t make a difference here.

Well I would disagree. It does make a difference. My point was, it is clear Paul is not using the rhetorical device you are suggesting or the Greek would tip us off due to the use of mey subjunctives. The only other option is that Paul is contradicting himself or is confused. That was my point. I think the English bears it out fairly well in that there is nothing in the language that indicates Paul is comparing/contrasting or is suggesting something he knows not to be true. Rather, he is encouraging them to understand these points as he goes along in the argument.

Just like in his views on slavery in his views on gender/family relations Paul was not much of a social revolutionary, but (up to a point, which was idol worship) wanted Christians to accept the rules of the society they lived in, whilst at the same time sowing subversive new ideas.

I agree. And because I believe Paul was an inspired, inerrant author, I think we should continue to live in the culture in such a way where we express Christ-like submission in ways that are socially appropriate...rather than continually finding ways to use our Christian liberty for purposes of promoting individualism and antinominism. Paul's primary subversive new ideas (as I see it), is that Christians can shine like stars in a dark world as they humbly honor God while surrendering their own rights for the sake of blessing others...especially in areas in which they have people in positions of authority over them. Instead, we have Christians who mock and derride their political leaders, gossip and complain at the local church, are lazy, ungrateful workers in their jobs, and use the grace of Christ which calls them to holiness as a catalyst for personal indulgence and serving the evil desires of the flesh.

I mean, think about it. Which is more "subversive" in our day and age?

Not seeking recognition, saying "no" to the lusts of the flesh that the Bible says are ungodly, and actively, gladly seeking how you can serve others in submission based on the roles God has placed you in life....

or embracing cultural norms on sexuality and personal "rights" and arguing that the Bible has taught these things all along...its just taken us 2000+ years to figure out what Paul really meant.

The subversive idea is that husbands must love their wives rather than viewing them as a mere commodity. Whenever Paul elevates women he doesn’t follow 1th century mainstream thought. That is what would have made his original audience listen up and that is what should get our attention. And yes, when you love somebody – at least in my emotional world - you submit to them. That Paul connects the two is obvious in that he clearly isn’t a fan of begrudging/merely outward submission (Eph. 6:5-9).

I agree that Paul cuts against 1st century thought in the treatment of women. That DOESNT mean that Paul doesnt really accept the first proposition (wives submit to your husbands) and is just spouting what everyone already accepted. It seems you want to argue, "Yeah, Paul said wives should submit to their husbands, but thats only because everyone believed that and so he HAD to say that. The real point he is making is "husbands love your wives." The first is a concession, the second is the subversive, Spirit-guided command." Well, to me this just seems like cherry picking. It seems like a grand assumption that a person can read into the mind of Paul and see what his real emphasis and focus was on, while somewhat dismissing the other commands as merely cultural concessions.

I think this is a poor hermeneutic. I dont think Paul's command for wives to submit to their husbands was merely a cultural concession. Rather, he gives rationale that the church submits to Christ as spiritual justification for this command. So even if the real cultural shock would have been felt in Paul's command for husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church and gave himself up for her (which I dont know that it would have been quite as shocking a statement as you imply), it doesnt mean the call for women to submit to their husbands is not equally a command from the Lord. Again, I think a lot of these new approaches to hermeneutics which says, "I know what Paul was really thinking. Here was the real situation in his culture, so this was merely just Paul being a product of his culture...but THIS statement is really what the Spirit wants us to grab hold of and run with." No, I think we just take the Bible as it is and when it says "men lusting after other men" is evil before God, then we should accept it. When it says, "honor the king." We should accept it. When it says, "Husbands love your wives, and wives submit to your husbands" then we should accept it.

And Eph. 5:32 seems to point to that very direction. But contrary to Augustine (who thought the head covering referred to “a hidden sacrament”), you seem to read the text quite literally when it comes to gender relations, whilst still accepting that women, too, are made in the image of God and happily discarding the plain instruction for women to cover their head as a merely cultural thing. Why? Did you ever take into consideration that your very own cultural views and traditions may have affected your reading?

I am not sure I know how to answer this. The article you gave me to read makes pretty much the exact same argument about how headcovering was cultural, but the principle of submission is not. I would encourage you to read it again as they did a very good job explaining why headcovering is a symbol of a grander principle at work in the local church. So, my argument is that the PRINCIPLE Paul is arguing for (submission, specifically for women in the local church in this instance) is still valid. The MEANS by which that principle was expressed in the first century (headcovering) would not make sense today and therefore we should find culturally understandable ways to express that timeless principle of gender roles and submission. It seems to me your argument is that both the principle of submission AND the practice of headcovering were cultural practices. I find that impossible to accept given the statements Paul makes:

“Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.” (1 Corinthians 11:2, ESV)
“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3, ESV)
“That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (1 Corinthians 11:10, ESV)

To summarize my view, Paul is encouraging the Corinthians to continue the tradition of women using headcoverings, a cultural practice expressing submission in worship. He uses a number of rationale to explain why this "tradition" should be continued. The tradition was a cultural expression of women submitting to male authority during the worship services in the local church (not all the time). Paul's rationale is that it is important for women to express this kind of submissive demeanor in worship and uses creation and cultural understandings of hair length and their meaning as important for communicating this submissive attitude. Basically, Paul is saying, "no women would shave their heads, right? Everyone would think they were a prostitute! How we present our heads matters to how we are perceived by those around us. Thus it is important that we present our heads in this way before the Lord because the angels and present and this attitude of submission is what God desires based on his creative order and plan. Moreover, if you do not do this, you are out of step with all the other churches of God." So again, Paul is talking about cultural practices of hair length and head covering to point to a universal principle of the importance of submission of women to men in the leadership practices of the local church.

Sorry, I don’t eat that.

Ha, thats a phrase I have not heard before.

Of course “killing one another” implies that all the involved parties kill. And when my husband and I promised to love one another, we meant that I shall love him and he shall love me. If you insist that “ἀλλήλοις” doesn’t indicate reciprocity you clearly are in denial:

The question here about the word allelon is whether or not it must indicate complete reciprocity. The clear answer to this is NO. On some occasions, yes, it calls everyone to participate with everyone else. Your example shows this in "love one another." Everyone is to love everyone else. In other cases, the word indicates either "everyone to some" or "some to others" and NOT everyone to everyone. Consider the following:

“So the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought him something to eat?”” (John 4:33, ESV)
-Based on your argument that this word must mean everyone to everyone, then we must imply that every single disciple said this phrase to each of the other disciples, rather than some of the disciples saying to some of the other disciples, "Has anyone brought him something to eat?"

“If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” (John 13:14, ESV)
-Based on your view of this word, Jesus must be saying that John must wash Bill, Joe and Suzie's feet, Bill must wash John, Joe and Suzie's feet, Suzie must wash John, Bill, and Joe's feet and Joe must wash Bill, John, and Suzie's feet. Clearly that is not the case. A person only needs their feet washed once. Everyone washes some, not everyone washes everyone.

“Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:2, ESV)
-This is not teaching that every christian must bear the burdens of every other Christian. Some have burdens and those without are to help bear those burdens. Some helping some. Not everyone bearing everyone.

“In the meantime, when so many thousands of the people had gathered together that they were trampling one another, he began to say to his disciples first, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” (Luke 12:1, ESV)
Now this must be quite a sight if everyone is getting trampled and those who are getting trampled are likewise trampling on those who are trampling on them! No, clearly some are getting trampled and others are doing the trampling.

“And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus,” (Acts 15:39, ESV)
Based on complete reciprocity, they must have split in four directions. That clearly isnt the case. The context tells us Barnabas and Mark went away from Paul together.

“Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices” (Colossians 3:9, ESV)
Again, the implication here is not that everyone is A is lying to B and B is lying to A. No, some are lying to others in the body and they need to stop.

“And out came another horse, bright red. Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people should slay one another, and he was given a great sword.” (Revelation 6:4, ESV)
One final example, the killing done here is not person A killing all the other people on the earth and all the people on the earth are at the same time killing person A (along with everyone else). No, some are killing others.

So you see, the command to "submit to one another" is not "everyone to everyone" in this instance (and the context clearly bears that out). It is not saying that person A submits to persons B, C, D and person B submits to A, C, and D and so forth. No, the context shows that everyone needs to be willing to submit to those in positions of authority over them (wives, husbands: slaves, masters: children, parents, etc). This has clearly been shown from the use of this term "submit to one another" from extrabiblical literature found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Qumran scholar Nathan Jastram remarks, "There is now good evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls that shows that to 'submit to one another' means that each member of a community is to be subject to the other members of the community that have authority over him" ("Man," 78).

 

[junobet]

Well I would disagree. It does make a difference. My point was, it is clear Paul is not using the rhetorical device you are suggesting or the Greek would tip us off due to the use of mey subjunctives. The only other option is that Paul is contradicting himself or is confused. That was my point. I think the English bears it out fairly well in that there is nothing in the language that indicates Paul is comparing/contrasting or is suggesting something he knows not to be true. Rather, he is encouraging them to understand these points as he goes along in the argument.


I agree. And because I believe Paul was an inspired, inerrant author, I think we should continue to live in the culture in such a way where we express Christ-like submission in ways that are socially appropriate...rather than continually finding ways to use our Christian liberty for purposes of promoting individualism and antinominism. Paul's primary subversive new ideas (as I see it), is that Christians can shine like stars in a dark world as they humbly honor God while surrendering their own rights for the sake of blessing others...especially in areas in which they have people in positions of authority over them. Instead, we have Christians who mock and derride their political leaders, gossip and complain at the local church, are lazy, ungrateful workers in their jobs, and use the grace of Christ which calls them to holiness as a catalyst for personal indulgence and serving the evil desires of the flesh.

I mean, think about it. Which is more "subversive" in our day and age?

[SIZE=12pt]Well, I already pointed out to you that the only being I deem to be inerrant is God. Surely Paul would agree. He himself explicitly states that he is not perfect. He also warns that “[/SIZE]the written text brings death, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6b). Which brings us to the problem that is the opposite to antinomianism: blind legalism. To save us from becoming just like the Pharisees, Christians are given a spiritual standard to evaluate our moral laws by, a standard that is valid and applicable in any given society: love of neighbour. And yes, loving your neighbour can be very radical, much more radical than most Christians would like it to be.
So while I surely hope that in very many cases you and I come to similar conclusions about what it means to be the “light of the world”, I fear in others we sharply disagree. In this case I can’t really tell, because you keep dodging the question how you fill your (IMHO socially very inappropriate) demand for female submission with meaning. Saudi-style female submission is probably not your thing, but otherwise I can only speculate. When women demonstrated for their right to vote, was that a “personal indulgence”? What on earth do you mean by that in this context?

[SIZE=12pt]Not seeking recognition, saying "no" to the lusts of the flesh that the Bible says are ungodly, and actively, gladly seeking how you can serve others in submission based on the roles God has placed you in life....[/SIZE]
​

​

[SIZE=12pt]I’m not sure whether it’s the other thread lingering in the your mind, or whether it’s the neo-platonism that has influenced western christian thought for so long, that makes you connect a discussion about gender roles with “lusts of the flesh” (the emotional “flesh” traditionally being attributed to the female, while the rational mind is traditionally attributed to the male). [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]As for the roles God has assigned for women: the Bible has very many different roles for women, ranging from the ruling judge Deborah who successfully led her people into battle, to the busy housewife Martha. So again, I don’t know what you think a woman’s role should be.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I agree that Paul cuts against 1st century thought in the treatment of women. That DOESNT mean that Paul doesnt really accept the first proposition (wives submit to your husbands) and is just spouting what everyone already accepted. It seems you want to argue, "Yeah, Paul said wives should submit to their husbands, but thats only because everyone believed that and so he HAD to say that. The real point he is making is "husbands love your wives." The first is a concession, the second is the subversive, Spirit-guided command." Well, to me this just seems like cherry picking. It seems like a grand assumption that a person can read into the mind of Paul and see what his real emphasis and focus was on, while somewhat dismissing the other commands as merely cultural concessions. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]I think this is a poor hermeneutic. I dont think Paul's command for wives to submit to their husbands was merely a cultural concession. Rather, he gives rationale that the church submits to Christ as spiritual justification for this command. So even if the real cultural shock would have been felt in Paul's command for husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church and gave himself up for her (which I dont know that it would have been quite as shocking a statement as you imply), it doesnt mean the call for women to submit to their husbands is not equally a command from the Lord. Again, I think a lot of these new approaches to hermeneutics which says, "I know what Paul was really thinking. Here was the real situation in his culture, so this was merely just Paul being a product of his culture...but THIS statement is really what the Spirit wants us to grab hold of and run with." No, I think we just take the Bible as it is and when it says "men lusting after other men" is evil before God, then we should accept it. When it says, "honor the king." We should accept it. When it says, "Husbands love your wives, and wives submit to your husbands" then we should accept it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Think of my hermeneutics what you like, but at least my “cherry-picking” isn’t inherently inconsistent. As I see it your cherry-picking is. Eph. 5:32 makes it very clear that Paul uses 1th century imagery of marriage to explain the relationship between Christ and His Church. This no more obliges us to stick to the 1th century Roman idea of “pater familias” than the imagery of slaves and masters used in the gospels to explain the kingdom of God, obliges us to to stick to slavery. And when the Bible says “honour the king” that doesn’t mean that as a good Christian I ought to rally for the reinstallation of the German Kaiser. ‘Taking the Bible as it is’ I may just as well come to the conclusion, that God did not really like His people to have kings in the first place (1 Samuel 8:4-10).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I am not sure I know how to answer this. The article you gave me to read makes pretty much the exact same argument about how headcovering was cultural, but the principle of submission is not. I would encourage you to read it again as they did a very good job explaining why headcovering is a symbol of a grander principle at work in the local church. So, my argument is that the PRINCIPLE Paul is arguing for (submission, specifically for women in the local church in this instance) is still valid. The MEANS by which that principle was expressed in the first century (headcovering) would not make sense today and therefore we should find culturally understandable ways to express that timeless principle of gender roles and submission. It seems to me your argument is that both the principle of submission AND the practice of headcovering were cultural practices. I find that impossible to accept given the statements Paul makes:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.” (1 Corinthians 11:2, ESV) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=12pt]Try tell an Amish women that head-covering doesn’t make sense today. I must say I admire them for at least showing some [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]consequence when trying to ‘take the Bible for what it is’.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The main point of the article I linked was that [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]you being the head of your wife as God is the head of Christ must be viewed in the light[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]our Nicaean understanding of the trinity - that I very much think you hold and that you probably think Paul basically held (to a degree so do I). And in this light headship gets a very egalitarian notion: Christ and God are one. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Ha, thats a phrase I have not heard before. [/SIZE]

​

[SIZE=12pt]Oh dear, my German idioms must have gotten the better of me. I see you got what I meant though. Sorry, but I still don’t believe that “[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]ἀλλήλων[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]” indicates anything but reciprocity. It certainly means just that in all the places in which it occurs in in the NT, and if I ever had translated it in any other way but “einander” or “gegenseitig” (German for “one another”/“mutually”/”reciprocative”), my pedantic old Greek teacher would have torn me apart. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Your resistance to the idea that submission between wife and husband may be intended to be reciprocal is a bit eerie to me. No offense meant, but so far one might get the impression you only have a problem with “personal rights”, when the rights of others are concerned. But I do hope that in practise your marriage looks pretty much like mine, which is characterized by mutal commitment and good team-work. [/SIZE]

 

[StanJ]

Well, I already pointed out to you that the only being I deem to be inerrant is God.

Do you believe his written word is as inerrant as he is?

 

[Wormwood]

To save us from becoming just like the Pharisees, Christians are given a spiritual standard to evaluate our moral laws by, a standard that is valid and applicable in any given society: love of neighbour. And yes, loving your neighbour can be very radical, much more radical than most Christians would like it to be.

I think there is a difference in seeking to live a holy and God-honoring live due to the grace he has given, and trying to earn one's merit before God through legalistic standards of righteousness. Please do not misunderstand my call for holiness to be a call to earn one's own way to heaven. I am sure you would agree that "grace" is not a license to live a wicked life. If God deems something to be wicked, why would we seek to justify it or use terms like "grace" and "love" to approve of that which God hates?

So while I surely hope that in very many cases you and I come to similar conclusions about what it means to be the “light of the world”, I fear in others we sharply disagree. In this case I can’t really tell, because you keep dodging the question how you fill your (IMHO socially very inappropriate) demand for female submission with meaning. Saudi-style female submission is probably not your thing, but otherwise I can only speculate. When women demonstrated for their right to vote, was that a “personal indulgence”? What on earth do you mean by that in this context?

I have to run, but I did want to answer this important question before I hit the road. I do not feel it is my job to "demand...female submission." I think it is the obligation for women such as yourself to obey the Scriptures in this regard. As I said, there is one woman in our church who covers her head when I preach and I respect that (but do not require it). I think the way our church follows the command for male leadership is simply by having male elders. We allow women to hold every other position and serve in every other way but preach to the congregation as a whole or serve as overseeing elders.

I hope that answers your question. Have a blessed day.

 

[junobet]

Do you believe his written word is as inerrant as he is?

[SIZE=12pt]Sure, but if I remember the Bible correctly it tells us of just two incidences where God personally dictated or wrote anything and in both incidences we don’t have these writings.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]As for the Bible itself: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Do I believe that the mustard seed is “smaller than all other seeds”, even though any botanist knows that this is observably not true? I don’t. Do I think this changes the truth that God wanted the author of the Gospel of Matthew to convey? No, not in the least. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Thank you for making me think of this passage though. I think it fits this thread rather nicely, in which we spoke of Paul’s letters containing subversive new ideas:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]“He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](Mt. 13:31-32)[/SIZE]

 

[junobet]

I think there is a difference in seeking to live a holy and God-honoring live due to the grace he has given, and trying to earn one's merit before God through legalistic standards of righteousness. Please do not misunderstand my call for holiness to be a call to earn one's own way to heaven. I am sure you would agree that "grace" is not a license to live a wicked life.

[SIZE=12pt]On these points we fully agree.[/SIZE]

If God deems something to be wicked, why would we seek to justify it or use terms like "grace" and "love" to approve of that which God hates?

[SIZE=12pt]The problem is that human beings – myself included – have the tendency to believe that God hates whatever they hate. And they can usually point to passages from Holy Scripture that seem to confirm their views. My grandfather for example, a very typical conservative German Protestant of his time, thought that his anti-Semitism was soundly grounded in the Gospel of John. I suppose both you and I would say that this was bad exegesis. But who can really tell whether ours is much better?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]So of course I may be wrong concerning anything I hold to be true about the will of God. But I’m absolutely sure that God would rather we love something for the wrong reasons than hate something for the wrong reasons.[/SIZE]

I have to run, but I did want to answer this important question before I hit the road. I do not feel it is my job to "demand...female submission." I think it is the obligation for women such as yourself to obey the Scriptures in this regard. As I said, there is one woman in our church who covers her head when I preach and I respect that (but do not require it). I think the way our church follows the command for male leadership is simply by having male elders. We allow women to hold every other position and serve in every other way but preach to the congregation as a whole or serve as overseeing elders.

I hope that answers your question. Have a blessed day.

[SIZE=12pt]Well, more or less. Of course every church has to follow its own conclusions. Quite a while ago mine has reevaluated its views on women-pastors and women-elders and eventually c[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]ame to the conclusion that to exclude women from such posts was following church tradition rather than what Biblical evidence (as roughly outlined above) points to. Had to look it up: Germany’s first women pastor was ordained in 1958.[/SIZE]
http://efid.adminkerygma.de/upload/custom/Haseloff_DIENSTLICH.jpg

have a blessed day, too

 

[StanJ]

Sure, but if I remember the Bible correctly it tells us of just two incidences where God personally dictated or wrote anything and in both incidences we don’t have these writings.[/size]

2 Tim 3:16 addresses your concern here, and it's always best to be specific when you're going to advocate a certain position.

As for the Bible itself: [/size]
Do I believe that the mustard seed is “smaller than all other seeds”, even though any botanist knows that this is observably not true? I don’t. Do I think this changes the truth that God wanted the author of the Gospel of Matthew to convey? No, not in the least. [/size]

It was at the time in the known world. For 2000 years people have been trying to disprove the word of God and of course there are many theories out there but none of them hold any water including this one. Of course it's also debatable that people who say certain spores are considered seeds may be wrong, but that is not the issue.

 

[mjrhealth]

Do you believe his written word is as inerrant as he is?

Well you seem to be wrong quiet a bit so i gues it does have error,
The letter Killeth the spirit gives life"

Search teh scriptures etc etc

 

[StanJ]

Well you seem to be wrong quiet a bit so i gues it does have error,
The letter Killeth the spirit gives life"
Search teh scriptures etc etc

That would be called a delusion that you're living under. Even Jesus recognized that the Pharisees sat in the place of Moses, but that they just didn't do what the word told them to do. Matthew 23:2-4
I doubt very much that your talk reflects your walk.

 

[mjrhealth]

I doubt very much that your talk reflects your walk.

Again yo uwill have to wait to find out...

Noew which is teh greater, teh dead letter as scripture is called or the living word who is Christ Jesus??????


Its ood that you demand everyone should beleeve you while all I ask is that people seek out Christ, he is teh truth and in Him there is no lie.