Well, when you're committed to your feminism more than your saviour or the word of God, it's not that hard to be equivocal or obfuscative.Wormwood said:
Headship, Submission and Women in Ministry
- Thread starter Wormwood
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hi Barrd, that is what I was actually getting at...
It was part of their culture : it existed. Some of the members of the Ephesus church would have been servants/slaves and/or bondservants. Where do you feel Paul is going off track? You have to understand that the Church in Ephesus would have been predominently gentile believers who have come straight out of the world. The Church in Corinth seemed to be more seasoned however, there were issues that the Paul needed to tackle just as there were issues in the Ephesus church that he felt he needed to address also...
I think you that you would need to be there in person to understand the things that were going on at that time. Paul was dealing with the gentiles churches who were coming from the world and into Christ's new covenant church. It was a whole new culture they were embracing.
What? Do you mean that you do not cover your hair, Angelina?1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.If you're not going to cover your head, then you need to shave it. That's the "modus operandi". Here's an interesting little tidbit: 1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Do you cover your hair Barrd? My hair just about touches the ground. :huh:
I think I may have quoted this verse already to acknowledge the point that women could actually prophecy or pray in the church and yes I have always found 1Co11:10 interesting and thought that it may possibly relate to Genesis 6:4. JMO. ^_^
Bless ya!
Sorry, but I don't know any other words for those actions. :)Angelina said:StanJ stop with the words ~ i keep on having to google them ~
I was asked if I am a feminist.Wormwood said:
My answer is an unequivocal "you betcha".
My remarks about education, voting, working, and getting paid are all a part of that feminism...as is my insistence that women are the equal of our brothers in the Christian faith.
And it isn't just about me. I have four beautiful and intelligent daughters, and three gorgeous and intelligent great grand daughters, and I will not let anyone tell any of them that they are any less in their homes, or in their workplace, or in their church, than any man.
And if my girls should not be behind anyone regardless of sex, why should any young woman? In Christ, all those old barriers are broken down.
And that is as it should be...
And you think that Jesus' guidelines included the idea that women should be meek and subservient little mice, keeping silent in the church and learning from our husbands at home? Somehow, I don't see that in Him at all.Angelina said:
Yes, it was.
Have you read some of the ancient laws about women?
For instance, did you know that if a husband suspected that his wife may have committed adultery, but wasn't sure, he could "test" her...the "test" involved taking up some dirt from the floor and putting it in water and making her drink it. If she got sick, she was guilty, and had to die.
Num 5:14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
Num 5:15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
Num 5:16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:
Num 5:17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
Num 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
Num 5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
Num 5:20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
Num 5:21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
Num 5:22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
This is one of the stupider laws from those ancient times, but there are others nearly this bad. This stuff was, as you say "part of their culture".
That is exactly my point. For centuries these new women had been used to a different way of life. These "guidelines" Paul is laying down are strictly for this transitional period.
Of course not.
I'm not sure at all what that has to do with it. Unless you're expecting a wicked witch to lock you away in a tower, or something?
Mine only reaches to my waist...no handsome prince to rescue my pretty behind, I guess....
Try to hear yourself say that:
"Women could actually prophecy or pray in the church"...as if this were some kind of special concession...as if it weren't our church, too.
Besides, you kinda forgot that Paul says that if you're gonna do either of those things, you must have your head covered. Mustn't make a peep unless your beautiful floor length hair is hidden...either that, or shave it off!
And aren't you a clever girl to make the connection with that story in Genesis! I am proud of you, Lady! I'll bet we could learn a lot from you, if you were only brave enough to come out from behind your brothers, and speak up.
Back atcha, Lady!
He simply means that he thinks I cloud the issues on purpose. He likes to sound as if he'd swallowed a dictionary.Angelina said:StanJ stop with the words ~ i keep on having to google them ~
But, to give him credit where credit is due, you'd never guess to hear him that he never graduated high school. He can hold his own with just about any scholar on this board.
What amazes me is that (and I have to admit, amuses me just a bit), when this thread first got started, he was arguing with WW on the side of women in the ministry. The two of them were arguing back and forth, exchanging scholarly precepts and quoting men with names like "Mounce" and "Moo" and who knows who else...guys who supposedly know much more than we mere laymen about such lofty ideals as keeping women in their place. WW was against, as he still is...but Stan was for.
Until I got involved. Now, I know he's already mad at me over a couple of other disagreements we've had...but still.
Ahh, well, no matter. I know what I believe, and I know why I believe it.
Let others do as they will...as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
No matter who doesn't like it.
Actually Barrd, as usual you misrepresent me. I indeed don't see eye to eye with WW, but we recognized that early on and moved on. I am FULLY for women teaching. What I disagree with you about is the assertion that any woman was ever an Apostle, as I exegeted. I also don't believe ANY Christian woman should claim proudly to be a feminist, when they are more than honoured and upheld in scripture, unlike all other religions. Despite all my efforts to be a good husband in spite of my failures, I had two women leave me for two different reasons. The first, after 23 years, was because she wanted perfect romance, and the second was because she went BACK to Mormonism, after only 4 years. Despite your efforts to denigrate me as a twice married single man, I am very aware of my scriptural responsibilities as a man of God.
At least I recognize my spiritual and educational betters, if you will, and submit to their learned understanding.
At least I recognize my spiritual and educational betters, if you will, and submit to their learned understanding.
You interpret meekness for weakness which is a grave mistake. Christ himself came as a servant and not to be served. Matt 20:28
Yes I have read these verses and yes these are some of the laws God gave to Moses for the people of Israel
Well it may very well be but remember that Paul spoke mostly to the predominantly gentile churches because God had made him a missionary to the gentiles. I would think that it would be the same as any one of us who have just been saved, entering into a body of believers who were relatively new themselves.
There's no need to be hostile...I was merely pointing out the difficulty of placing a mass of hair under some kind of prayer shawl ~ is all. :huh:
Well it wasn't a special concession since the churches he spoke to were gentiles. It was something new for many of them I'm sure....
Are you talking about my fellow teams members? I love these guys however, that does not mean I agree with everything they say and I do speak up but that does not mean you'll agree with me either.
One of my best experiences that I have had while being part of the body of Christ is knowing that your leaders, elders and Pastor, care about your welbeing and are willing to go that extra mile to help you when they think you need it.
Bless ya! :)
I certainly would not define Jesus Christ as "meek". In fact, He was quite outspoken. And, as I'm sure you know, a pastor is a servant. Somehow, some folks seem to have gotten the idea that the pastor is the master, while the people are just sheeple. Uh, no.Angelina said:
I have often wondered about that. WW gets upset with me because I have said that Moses wrote some of these laws...under God's supervision, of course...but it wasn't God Who wrote them. That one I quoted just goes to show how barbaric the times were.
But that's the point, Angelina. This was a new experience for these people, who were coming out of pagan backgrounds. These rules Paul gave were for this transitional period. They were for these churches at that time...and not intended for the entire church for all time.
There was no intention at all of being hostile! Darn, I need to remember that my silly brand of humor doesn't work too well in text. :wacko: Please accept my most abject and humble apologies. I am so sorry if I hurt your feelings. that was certainly never my intention at all.No, Angelina...but when you said your hair reached nearly to the ground, my mind went immediately to the story of Rapunzel. Remember, I've been a Mom and a Grandma for over forty five years...fairies and dragons and witches are my familiar friends, and stories are my stock in trade.
I apologize if you thought I was being hostile. I'm used to dealing with a very sarcastic bunch of people....and I suppose they learned it from their dear Momma
so it is really all my fault. it's as I told WW...if you are easily insulted, you wouldn't last around my house for even a single day.Anyway, I do most humbly apologize, Angelina. If anything, I'm a bit jealous...but certainly not hostile.
Let me get a crowbar and try to pry my tongue from my cheek, here...
I'm sure your hair is very beautiful. Hair that long is an unusual and unique feature. I love my own long hair, even though at my age it's getting a bit thin, and doesn't grow as quickly as it once did. Most women my age have cut their crowning glory short...something I have refused to do.
Yes, I can well imagine that all that hair might present a bit of a problem, just getting it all combed out, let alone getting it all under a prayer shawl. But that is still beside the point. If you're going to hold me to some out dated rules because Paul said so, then you need to put yourself under those same rules.
Now, me, I see no need at all for you to have to cover that no doubt gorgeous mass of hair. I don't believe God will turn away from you because you didn't cover your head to pray to Him in church. But that is the rule Paul gave you. And if you do not obey it, according to Paul, you should cut that mass of hair off...but in my no doubt worthless opinion, that would be a shame, if not a tragedy.
Exactly, Angelina.
I don't know anything about your fellow teams members. I'm glad to hear that there is love between you, but even happier to hear that you do speak up! You don't let the fact that you are a woman stop you from speaking your mind...good for you!
No, of course you do not agree with everything they say. You speak up, they speak up, you reach a consensus...everyone is happy. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?
No, I'm sure I won't agree with you, either, nor you with me. But we listen to one another, Angelina. You don't say to me, "Hey, Barrd...I'm a Teams member, and your just a user, so you have to shut up, because I outrank you." By the same token, I do not "lord it over" the other members of my little church. We don't always agree on everything...but we listen to one another, we talk things over, and we reach a consensus. And everyone is happy. It's not about "authority"...it never was. It's about love.
And isn't that as it should be?
That is beautiful, Angelina. Some of my very best experiences have been working together as a church with the rest of Love Inc. I have never felt closer to God, or closer to my brothers and sisters in Christ as I have since we decided to make our own little church...and we have grown. If we add many more, we'll have to start looking for an alternative meeting place.
And may the Lord rain His blessings down on you, as well, Angelina.
You evidently did not read what I wrote. I give you full credit for your accomplishment in educating yourself till you can hold your own with the best of 'em. That's quite a feat, for a man who only made it to the ninth grade. Quite impressive. You should be proud of yourself.StanJ said:
And I never said a word about your divorces.
Honestly, Stan, i know you're mad at me...but get over it already. We're not going to agree, but that doesn't have to make us enemies, fevvinsake...
Barrd,
I am not upset with you. Lots of people disagree with me on the issue, and so far I dont think anyone agrees with me on this board. However, I am concerned about you and the lengths to which you will go to justify your views on this matter. I agree with you that these laws were written to a specific people at a specific time which may indicate why some of them seem so foreign to us. However, to suggest that they came from the mind of Moses rather than God is just plain liberal heresy. Do you have any evidence for this argument? It seems to me that the only justification you have for undermining the Scriptures is that you dont like what they say and dont fit your picture of who God should be. Thus, you have effectively undercut the significance of the Bible because it does not meet your expectations. Dont you see how dangerous this is?
WW, do you honestly think that putting dirt from the floor into some "holy water" and making a woman drink it to see if it makes her sick or not was actually God's idea? Really? Or if you beat your slave with a rod and he doesn't die right away, but lingers for a day or so...well, it's your money, so you shouldn't be punished...this was God's idea?Wormwood said:
I don't think I'm "undermining the scriptures", though, WW. Actually, I think that insisting that God breathed such laws as these is maligning the character of God.
Deu 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
Deu 31:25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
Deu 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
Deu 31:27 For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?
Deu 31:28 Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.
Deu 31:29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.
Moses give himself credit for having written the book, and wanted it placed as a witness against the people. I'm sure you see it differently, of course.
The important thing is that, while these things were a part of their culture, as Angelina puts it, they have been "taken out of the way" since Jesus and the New Covenant.
So, while we may not agree as to how they got to be laws in the first place, we can both heave a sigh of relief that they are not laws any more...
Of course, you know that I am quite sure that the Ten Commandments are still valid laws for us today, and have not been "taken out of the way" at all, nor could they be.
And I know exactly what you mean when you say "no one on this board agrees with me" because that is exactly the situation I find myself in regarding the Ten Commandments.
Sometimes I do find myself hoping that I am as wrong as so many seem to think that I am, for their sakes. But I honestly do not see how I could be...
Yes I believe, as all orthodox Christians throughout Christian history, that God inspired the OT Law. Do you honestly think Moses conjured up these ideas and said, "What do you think, God?" And God said, "Meh, I actually am not a fan of what you are saying there, but because you are my buddy, Moses, I will give it my holy stamp of approval." Really?
Of course Moses wrote the Law, just like John wrote the Gospel of John. The doctrine of inspiration does not necessitate that these letters were divinely written by the finger of God, himself. It is clear that Moses was up on the mountain for a month receiving instruction. He wasnt gazing upon his naval and just writing laws at a whim as you propose.
You know, I thought about quoting 50 or so passages in the OT and NT which clearly declare the Law of God as good and all the commands of Moses in the law as coming directly from the mouth of God. But, I am not going to bother. You can read your Bible. I think anyone who reads either the OT or NT and concludes the only part of the Law that actually came from God is the 10 commandments is beyond the reach of reason. I would encourage you to either take up your Bible and read it and accept its self-declaration as God-breathed or dont. If you wont listen to the Bible's own declaration, then my comments are quite meaningless.
The sad thing is you slip so easily into your insults that you're not apparently aware of them, but you did indeed make a reference to my marital status not to long ago.The Barrd said:
I'm not even close to mad at you, but I am very aware of exactly the kind of style you use here, and it doesn't fly with me.
Common sense ought to tell you that putting dirt from the floor into a glass of water and then drinking it is probably not a very good idea. Even in this modern age, when we have cleaners with bleach in them, and steam mops, and such, I still would not recommend making a beverage from water and dirt...not even if the water is "holy". I don't even want to think about ingesting dirt from the floor in those ancient times.Wormwood said:
Now, if I'm smart enough to know that I could get sick if I drink water with dirt in it, what do you think are the chances that God would know this, too?
Okay...now, I can understand that this was a different time, and that people did own slaves. I can accept that. And God would lay down rules for how His people should treat their slaves...I can even accept that, although it makes me squirm a bit. But for God to condone beating a slave with a rod so severely that he dies of it...uh, no. Not even if it takes the slave a day or so to expire. This is the God Who calls Himself "Love"?
Really?
If you could prove to me that I am wrong here, and that God did indeed write these despicable "laws", you would shake my faith in Him to it's foundations.
The same God Who says "Thou shalt not kill" says that it's okay to beat a helpless slave with a rod, and if he lasts a day or two before he dies, oh well...it's your money? You don't see some discrepancy there?
It's one thing to say that God gave a law that allowed a man to divorce his wife "for the hardness of your hearts"...but to tell them that they should make their wife drink poison to check up on her fidelity? How hard were these mens' hearts, anyway...and just how much latitude was God willing to give them because of it?
Your "bandwagon fallacy" (argument that because a lot of people believe it, it must be true) does not convince me.
Not much different than what Jesus did in John 9:6 Barrd, but then again it's not us questioning the validity of how God did things now is it?The Barrd said:
God could never have written those laws. They are full of bigotry and hate. Indeed, they reek of it.
The God I know and love and have put my faith in could never have written laws like that.
The God I know and love and have put my faith in could never have written laws like that.
Really? So you espouse God is not able to be fully understood by us but them refuse to accept what you don't understand? I expect you must have an awful lot of cognitive dissonance to deal with?The Barrd said:
Common sense also tells us that spit and mud into the eyes of the blind man does not produce sight (as Stan pointed out), axeheads dont float, staves dont turn to snakes and rivers dont part for people to pass through. If you are looking for a book of common sense, then the Bible is not for you.
You are demeaning the Word of God because you do not understand it. In the days when Moses wrote these laws, slaves could be killed without thought or concern of the owner. In fact, the Israelites experienced that for 400 years. God actually was telling them that everyone had value, even slaves (which was not the common understanding).
““When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.” (Exodus 21:20, ESV)
““When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye.” (Exodus 21:26, ESV)
“When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.” (Exodus 21:2, ESV)
““You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow’s garment in pledge, but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this.” (Deuteronomy 24:17–18, ESV)
Clearly, the OT Law does not promote or encourage abuse of foreigners or slaves. In fact, compared to other laws, like the Code of Hammurabi, slaves had no value and there was no punishment for mistreating or harming them, unless the owner lost money as a result of someone harming his slave. However, in the Law we find God regularly reminding his people that they too, were once slaves and warns them of punishment for oppression or killing other people. The law dealt with how to punish people for varying circumstances and situations that was common in the ancient world. No other law was ever like it in the way it did not give preference to the rich and even sought justice for people who had previously been seen without value or rights. Most of all, the underlying theme of the law was to love people and treat them as you would want to be treated. Every Jew who was taught the Law understood this to be the primary foundation of it: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. The Law was good, is good and is from God. The fact you think it is evil shows that not only are you ignorant of history, but also of basic Bible doctrine. There is no point in me continuing this conversation since we cannot agree on basic concepts of what constitutes Scripture.
Similar threads
- Locked
