Women's Role

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by QOSTA

Evangelical. Thank you for your input. There are couple things I wanted to talk about but how about we start with one.

What is your understanding on sexism? I'm also in Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies and by no means the "common definition of sexism today" has ever revolved around "females are not allowed to use the male toilets and vice versa". Sexism is, and has always been about "the prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender." Note here that by definition, sexism can affect either gender.

And I apologize if I haven't made it clearer. When I talked about sexism exhibited in the LC, I was referring to misogyny, which stands for dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. From my experience, there certainly is prejudice against women in LC. I'm taking your comment "there's no dress code" at face value; Sure, different localities might have different practices. I'll just ask you one thing: Who do you see, in the leadership circle of LC, is a woman? And whom among those women that you considered leaders in the LC community, is not some elder/male leader's wife, sister, daughter? I'm genuinely curious if you know any sister that is in leadership position because of and only because of her spirituality.

That's the thing. Sexism to me is all about power dynamics. Men hold positions of power in the LC system. Men have all the representation in leadership. There are at least the same number of women, if not more, in the LC system. Why aren't women represented in positions of power and be involved in high level decision making? There are and always have been spiritual giants that are women. When voices from one gender are not heard but rather ignored, whatever the situation is, there is a problem.

I appreciate you bringing up the historical viewpoint. If you think people then got things right and you would rather live according to those standards, well, I'm fairly certain that I know much more about you as a person and a believer than how much info you revealed about yourself on this forum.

Thank you for your input. Looking forward to seeing your reply.

Hi QOSTA,

If the meaning of sexism meant misogyny then I have no problem with that. The topic however usually reverts to "women can't be leaders" but the two matters are different issues. I note that your post started off talking about misogyny but then reverted to matters of women in church leadership. If "women can't be leaders" is the same as misogyny then Jesus was sexist for choosing only 12 male church leaders and in not allowing Mary, a woman, to touch Him after His resurrection, but allowing Thomas, a male disciple, to touch Him.

Therefore in the first church, the group of 12 disciples, the voices of women were not heard and no woman was involved in the decision making of the church. The Last Supper, Jesus shared only with his closest 12, and the women close to Jesus did not participate nor were they invited.

One would think that if Jesus was truly a social reformer, intending to bring in equality between the sexes, he would have included at least one woman on his team and would not be shy about doing so. He had no problem being persecuted for meeting with tax collectors and prostitutes, yet he never reversed hundreds of years of Jewish tradition. Still, there were many women close to Jesus and loved by Jesus, Mary, Martha, etc. The thing is, they did not have to be included in high level decision making, and furthermore, they were happy about that and did not complain about it. That kind of woman that God prefers is described in 1 Peter 3:4 You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God.

Submission, not trying to achieve leadership positions, is how holy women have always behaved according to Peter:

1 Peter 3:5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands,

verse 6:

Sarah obeyed her husband, Abraham, and called him her master.


Sarah did not seek an equal leadership position alongside her husband Abraham nor seek to be Abraham's master/leader. Yet Sarah was still truly a great woman. Sarah is an example of a great, holy woman.

In my experience, 1 Peter 3:4 does not describe most women I know involved in feminism movements. God is not impressed at women trying to achieve high positions of authority in the church with their boldness and loudness. He is rather, impressed by women who can suppress their ambitions, if any, and become a gentle and quiet spirit, in support of leaders.

Just because a female may be very spiritual, even more spiritual then men, it does not qualify them for a leadership position over men. Sarah for example may have been far more spiritual than Abraham, yet she was still obliged to call him her master.

You have said that sexism to you is about power dynamics.

To me, it is about God's creation and how male and female were created differently. There is something in most men, in their God-given DNA that does not want nor require women to be their leaders.
There is also something ingrained in most women I know, that causes them to not desire to be leaders. The situation of male leaders and female supporters mirrors the life of Abraham and Sarah, and the intended purpose for women to be helpers for men. God created Eve intending her to be a helper for Adam, not his leader.

Remember, God did not create women first. They were not originally in God's plan for mankind, until God saw that the animals alone were not enough for Adam. Paul's reason for not allowing women in positions of authority was simply because Adam was created first:
1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

On the matter of what the bible says, I bring up two great articles by a well respected theologian and Greek NT expert that you may be interested to read given your studies.

https://bible.org/series/women-leadership

The historical and I believe true interpretation of the bible, in the original Greek, does not support the modern day concepts of females in church leadership. One cannot support female leaders in the church without compromising some aspect of the bible or their spirituality.

The bible's message that salvation is for both male and female has been compromised by twisting it around to mean that male and female are equal, when int he life of Sarah/Abraham, Adam/Eve, Jesus and the disciples, Peter, Paul, this is clearly not the case. Galatians 3:28, does not abolish all sexual differences so that men and women may function in identical capacities.

[Nell]

QOSTA,

This is classic Evangelical. He constructed his own scenario, asked a question and answered it instead of responding to the one thing you wanted to know.

I'll just ask you one thing: Who do you see, in the leadership circle of LC, is a woman? And whom among those women that you considered leaders in the LC community, is not some elder/male leader's wife, sister, daughter? I'm genuinely curious if you know any sister that is in leadership position because of and only because of her spirituality.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

QOSTA,

This is classic Evangelical. He constructed his own question and answered it instead of responding to the one thing you wanted to know.



Nell

The answer to that question is no, I have not seen any female in a leadership position on the basis of her own spirituality and leading men outside of the covering of a husband.

Rather, I have seen husbands and wives serving God together, in a way that mirrors the example of Abraham and Sarah. Two people, male and female, serving God together as God intended. The female, submitting to her husband, and not trying to rule over him or others, in the church. But likely, having the freedom to rule the roost at home. Male leaders at church, female leaders at home, is often how I have observed things to be in the LC. When I first joined the LC and attending home meetings, it was the women of the house telling people what to do and when to do it. Yet not in an overbearing way. So women get to rule the home 24/7 , 7 days a week, and they complain about not being in leadership for 2 hours on a Sunday? That's how I see the matter anyway.

And one must be naive to think that men in church leadership positions do not have discussions at home with their wives where their wives can provide input and influence their decision making. A strong male leader and a sweet yet crafty wife is the stereotypical power couple I believe. Abraham and Sarah were possibly like that because Sarah devised the plan to have Ishmael. The bible contains examples of women married to powerful men influencing or trying to influence their decision making at home, such as the beheading of John the baptist, and warning Pilate to have nothing to do with Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The historical and I believe true interpretation of the bible, in the original Greek, does not support the modern day concepts of females in church leadership.

Then why does the N.T. record Phoebe a deaconess (Rm 16.1), Prisca a female worker (Rm 16.3), and Junia a female apostle (Rm 16.7)?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why does the N.T. record Phoebe a deaconess (Rm 16.1), Prisca a female worker (Rm 16.3), and Junia a female apostle (Rm 16.7)?

This is thoroughly addressed by a Greek NT expert:

https://bible.org/article/may-women-...elude-dialogue

It is lengthy and deserving of a full read, but I just submit two of the 5 arguments as a taste:

in 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a DIAKONOS—and Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus. But he obviously was not a deacon. So, why then should we call Phoebe a ‘deacon’? The term is thus rather flexible and it seems gratuitous to call Phoebe a deacon in Rom 16:7.

In response are five arguments: (1) If women deacons are in view in v. 11, it seems rather strange that they should be discussed right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons, rather than by themselves; (2) Paul indeed seems to go out of his way to indicate that women are NOT deacons in the very next verse, for he says “Deacons must be husbands of one wife”

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is thoroughly addressed by a Greek NT expert:

I'm tired of your "experts." Have not we in the LC's heard enough of "experts" telling us that the plain words of scripture do not really mean what they say?

You promote Witness Lee, the expert minister of the age, who spent hours convincing us that I Cor 6 about suing other Christians does not apply to the dozens of lawsuits initiated by LSM.

Read Romans 16.1 again. "Our sister Phoebe is a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea." What part of that simple statement by Apostle Paul is too difficult for you to understand? Is Paul speaking in parables here?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm tired of your "experts." Have not we in the LC's heard enough of "experts" telling us that the plain words of scripture do not really mean what they say?

So you don't consider Wallace to be an expert in Greek NT. If the "plain words of scripture" were sufficient we would hardly need theologians, scholars, teachers, would we? My first question is, which bible version do you want to take as a "plain scripture"?

You have claimed that Romans 16:1 says

" "Our sister Phoebe is a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea."



From
http://biblehub.com/romans/16-1.htm

I count only in 4 of the 24 bible versions is the word translated as deacon or deaconess.


Wallace says this:

In Rom 16:1, Phoebe is called a “servant of the church of Cenchrea.” This word, ‘servant,’ is what is occasionally translated as ‘minister,’ or less often as ‘deacon.’

If I read this plainly as a "servant of the church" and not a deacon, as most of the translations say, then you cannot say this conclusively proves that Phoebe had some official authority in the church as a deacon. If I put my "KJV only" hat on, then in the KJV and also in the revised KJV it says servant and not deacon. It is noteworthy that the translators of the revised KJV did not think it necessary to revise the word servant to deacon.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You promote Witness Lee, the expert minister of the age, who spent hours convincing us that I Cor 6 about suing other Christians does not apply to the dozens of lawsuits initiated by LSM.

It seems not to matter whether I quote Lee who people say "was not a theologian" or Wallace who is a theologian. You seem to have made your mind up about the matter.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read Romans 16.1 again. "Our sister Phoebe is a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea." What part of that simple statement by Apostle Paul is too difficult for you to understand? Is Paul speaking in parables here?

When does a word not mean what it plainly says? When that word has gone through countless revisions and translations and when it is interpreted 2000 years later by a modern American mind. That's why we need experts like Wallace who can interpret the original Greek. Apparently the word for deaconess is not meant in an official capacity, it is used in a general way. A single word can have two different meanings. Greek NT experts are able to decipher and determine the most likely context and meaning of the words.

I thought you understood this, as you seemed to support the notion of there being "lemon translations" of the bible in other threads concerning the role of women in the church.

Unfortunately the idea of "lemon translations" of the original Greek can be a double edged sword. We cannot claim there are inaccurate translations on some parts of the bible and ignore inaccurate translations in others.

[Nell]

.

Gen. 21:12 But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the lad and because of your slave woman; whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your descendants be named.

.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You have claimed that Romans 16:1 says

" "Our sister Phoebe is a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea."


Wallace says this:

In Rom 16:1, Phoebe is called a “servant of the church of Cenchrea.” This word, ‘servant,’ is what is occasionally translated as ‘minister,’ or less often as ‘deacon.’

Your argument backfires on you when we consider the ramifications.

If the Greek work "DIAKONOS" refers to Timothy a "good minister of Jesus Christ" (I Tim 4.6) as you say, then lets also call Phoebe a "good minister of Jesus Christ."

How about that Evangelical? A sister ministering to the church in Cenchrea, now recommended by Paul to the saints in Rome. Wow!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hi QOSTA,
...
Remember, God did not create women first. They were not originally in God's plan for mankind, until God saw that the animals alone were not enough for Adam.

Wait. What? Women were Plan B?

Which one of your "experts" told you this? Or did you think it up all by yourself? So let's get this straight: God made a mistake when he forgot that the animals were not enough for Adam so he---quick like a bunny---had to rework his plan and make a woman? Maybe God figured out that Adam couldn't make babies all by himself? Oops!

Genesis 1:27 kinda' sounds like women were part of the plan from the beginning.

Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

You've been a forum member for less than a year, yet you have posted a whopping 2,139 times. Maybe you need to take a break.

Nell
.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hi QOSTA,

Remember, God did not create women first. They were not originally in God's plan for mankind, until God saw that the animals alone were not enough for Adam. Paul's reason for not allowing women in positions of authority was simply because Adam was created first:
1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Brother Evangelical!
Women were an afterthought??? Really? We were not originally in God's plan for mankind??? until God saw that the animals alone were not enough for Adam??

So... the Bride of Christ was an afterthought? And God did not really know us and choose us women before the foundation of the world?

No one is arguing God created Adam first.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Brother Evangelical!
Women were an afterthought??? Really? We were not originally in God's plan for mankind??? until God saw that the animals alone were not enough for Adam??

So... the Bride of Christ was an afterthought? And God did not really know us and choose us women before the foundation of the world?

No one is arguing God created Adam first.

If I read too many more of EvanJelly's posts, I might even become a "Leftist!"

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Brother Evangelical!
Women were an afterthought??? Really? We were not originally in God's plan for mankind??? until God saw that the animals alone were not enough for Adam??

So... the Bride of Christ was an afterthought? And God did not really know us and choose us women before the foundation of the world?

No one is arguing God created Adam first.

In eternity past of course women were part of God's plan.

However in time, in the creation account of Genesis, God created the man, God created the animals, and then God realized man needed a helper so He created woman. The classical Sunday school account usually mentions how lonely Adam was and how he couldn't find a suitable helper in the animals.
It all sounds very much like an afterthought from our perspective. Of course God being all-knowing , had a plan all along.

The one argument that destroys the feminist ideas is that Paul states that woman was not created for woman's sake but woman for man's sake:

“man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake” (1 Cor. 11:9).

God created women to be companions for man, not to be man's leaders.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

. . . and then God realized man needed a helper so He created woman. . . .

Did you actually mean to write that? God got all the way through creation to the forming of Adam, then "realized man needed a helper so He created woman"? Are you out of your mind?

Your version is much less plausible than the Sunday School version. And much less in sync with the scripture. At least the Sunday School version acknowledges an all-knowing God who allowed Adam to see his lack rather than just push it on him. Your version makes God into a half-baked buffoon who has to quickly take action to cover up his mistake.

Maybe that is the reason your sect is always so busy interpreting from scripture what actually isn't there. You are convinced that the "God-breathed" version is missing something, so Nee and Lee (and now maybe you) have been needed to bolster the scripture into something more fitting the God of your making.

As someone once said, God made man in His image, and man has been returning the favor ever since.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In eternity past of course women were part of God's plan.

However in time, in the creation account of Genesis, God created the man, God created the animals, and then God realized man needed a helper so He created woman.

God realized?
I believe God knew all along in the garden. It was Adam who sensed something was missing. After all, When God created the animals, He created male and female so they could reproduce. He probably wondered why the male animals had female companions but not him.

He was a spirit with a living soul filled with emotions and a will. After the fall, the spirit of man went dormant and the first man Adam, became a living soul we read in 1 Cor 15:45. So when The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” He saw that Adam realized the male animals had female counterparts. That's why I believe He said it is not good for the man to be alone.

It all sounds very much like an afterthought from our perspective. Of course God being all-knowing , had a plan all along.

But that's not how it came across in your comment. Glad you clarified.

The one argument that destroys the feminist ideas is that Paul states that woman was not created for woman's sake but woman for man's sake:

“man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake” (1 Cor. 11:9).

Paul also said "I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I."

God created women to be companions for man, not to be man's leaders.

Well. That makes Adam a very poor 'leader' doesn't it?

[UntoHim]

OK guys. Let's not belabor these points anymore in this thread. Let's let QOTSA have her thread back.
-

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rules about female/male interaction are not uncommon in my view in Christianity. I was once involved in an inter-denominational evangelical organization that believed men and women could not hold hands because the tension between them will lead to a 30 second flurry of activity and produce unwanted offspring. They warned us about holding hands in other words. The LC do not go to such extremes, but I think it works - the out of wedlock pregnancy rate would be lower in the LC than say the Baptist church and Pentecostal churches, applying the biblical principle of marrying rather than burning. This is because in the LC marriage is encouraged rather than so-called "Christian dating".

From my experiences and observations in LC's, denominational, and non-denominational church, each you would not likely to see a brother and sister holding hands unless they're married.
In my adult experiences since moving to Washington state, children being born out of wedlock is rare.
As far as female/male interaction goes, there's a bit normal human conversations in denominational and non-denominational churches whereas in the LC, it's not that easy. There is a social dysfunction resulting from concepts young people in the local churches have. Single sisters are apprehensive being spoken to by single brothers and single brothers may have their unique concepts. "Do I need to check with the brothers before speaking to sister ____". Responsible brothers may have their concepts too. If a single sister is responding in conversation to a single brother, she's being flirty. When in fact she's just being nice and cordial. Responsible brothers may think single brothers need to check for their approval before interacting with a single sister with a courtship in mind. Each locality is different. I have had my experiences and ones in other localities has had theirs.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Remember, God did not create women first. They were not originally in God's plan for mankind, until God saw that the animals alone were not enough for Adam.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In eternity past of course women were part of God's plan.

OK. I'll bite. What's the difference between "originally" and "eternity past"? I'm sure you will come up some wordy song-and-dance with an "expert" or two thrown in. Your male bias has reared its ugly head once again. I will join OBW in asking "Have you lost your mind?"
.

[UntoHim]

Actually Nell, I broke these number of posts off into a new thread and entitled it "Women's Role". Anybody is more than welcome to suggest a better title. I was getting concerned that our new friend QOTSA was having her thread hijacked, especially by Mr. Wonderful

In my opinion, the root of the problems we saw in the Local Church go all the way back to Watchman Nee. God provided him with a number of older, mature and wise women in his early life. He got big taste of what God can do through learned and mature women. He was also a careful reader of the Bible and had to notice this dynamic all through the Scriptures. Yet he seemed to abandon what God clearly showed him in regards to women's importance and value in the Body of Christ. Instead, it is apparent that he fell back on the ancient cultural norms and traditions of the Chinese culture. Additionally, if only a fraction of what Dr. Lily Hsu wrote in her memoir was true and accurate, it would seem that Nee actually fell into the worst disrespect and mistreatment that any man can perpetrate upon a woman.See this thread about Lily Hsu's memoir

Obviously, Witness Lee continued, and in some sense intensified, this dynamic within the Local Church movement, and it continues on to this very day. I think it is possible that this "spirit of abuse" towards women reared it's ugly head in the life and times of Witness Lee's sons, most notably his son Phillip. It is my understanding that Timothy was not far behind his brother in his morality towards women.
-

[Nell]

Thanks Unto. I thought that might be the case. I edited just before you posted.

The problem, IMHO, with the "Evangelical perspective" is that he seems to go far beyond what Lee, Nee and even the Blendeds practice...the current ludicrous example being that woman was not part of God's plan. There is no question about the "non-role" of women in the LSM/LC but this guy is beyond the pale.

Nell

[Evangelical]

I have already explained my use of the term "original plan" that I spoke from our perspective in time, and clarified my statement here:


It all sounds very much like an afterthought from our perspective. Of course God being all-knowing , had a plan all along.

I did not mean the term "original" to mean from the start of eternity.

This seems to have been understood by countmeworthy.

There are other matters in which we may say were not in God's original plan but of course were in His plan all along. For example eating animals and sin were not in God's original plan.

Some took issue with my statement that "God realized" man needed a woman.

This idea of "God realizing" is found in popular Christian literature.

In the book "Party of Two: Lessons for Staying in Step in Dating, Marriage, and Family Life By Beverly LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, page 75" it says:

"Soon after this great creative miracle, God realized "it was not good for man to be alone" "

The Creation account of Genesis does not sound like a God who had it all figured out beforehand.

These are really matters touching God's sovereignty and foreknowledge.

There are related questions around sin and the fall of man, whether this was planned all along for mankind to sin, or whether God expected mankind to resist Satan's temptation in the Garden.

Another Creation fact that points to God's "afterthought" concerning woman is that woman was not created from dust originally as a new species like Adam and the animals but was created as a version of man, being taken out of Adam's side.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]Actually Nell, I broke these number of posts off into a new thread and entitled it "Women's Role". Anybody is more than welcome to suggest a better title. I was getting concerned that our new friend QOTSA was having her thread hijacked, especially by Mr. Wonderful
-

Excuse me, but how can it be called "thread hijacking" when I was replying to QOSTA as QOSTA invited me to?

You will note, that the first post in this thread is addressed to QOSTA in response to their post to me in which they said
"Thank you for your input. Looking forward to seeing your reply."

How can I hijack a thread with the OP when they are the ones I am discussing with?

I believe the hijacking started when Ohio wanted to discuss the meaning of the word Deacon.

Anyway, a separate topic is a good idea as it was becoming theological in nature rather than introductory.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Excuse me, but how can it be called "thread hijacking" when I was replying to QOSTA as QOSTA invited me to?

You will note, that the first post in this thread is addressed to QOSTA in response to their post to me in which they said
"Thank you for your input. Looking forward to seeing your reply."

How can I hijack a thread with the OP when they are the ones I am discussing with?

I believe the hijacking started when Ohio wanted to discuss the meaning of the word Deacon.

Anyway, a separate topic is a good idea as it was becoming theological in nature rather than introductory.

Evy, you're such a whiner.

And it was you who launched that "deacon" tangent.

[John]

It seems that the current discussion on this thread has run its course, so I’d like to return to the first post and subject it to a more thorough and critical look. My critique is quite lengthy, but its length is necessary to adequately cover the excerpt I’ve chosen:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the meaning of sexism meant misogyny then I have no problem with that. The topic however usually reverts to "women can't be leaders" but the two matters are different issues. I note that your post started off talking about misogyny but then reverted to matters of women in church leadership. If "women can't be leaders" is the same as misogyny then Jesus was sexist for choosing only 12 male church leaders and in not allowing Mary, a woman, to touch Him after His resurrection, but allowing Thomas, a male disciple, to touch Him.

Therefore in the first church, the group of 12 disciples, the voices of women were not heard and no woman was involved in the decision making of the church. The Last Supper, Jesus shared only with his closest 12, and the women close to Jesus did not participate nor were they invited.

One would think that if Jesus was truly a social reformer, intending to bring in equality between the sexes, he would have included at least one woman on his team and would not be shy about doing so. He had no problem being persecuted for meeting with tax collectors and prostitutes, yet he never reversed hundreds of years of Jewish tradition. Still, there were many women close to Jesus and loved by Jesus, Mary, Martha, etc. The thing is, they did not have to be included in high level decision making, and furthermore, they were happy about that and did not complain about it. That kind of woman that God prefers is described in 1 Peter 3:4 You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God.

These are the things that I found problematic in these first three paragraphs:

1. A better translation of Jesus’ words to Mary, I think, would be those in the New American Standard Bible (“Stop clinging to Me”). As to Thomas, Jesus requested that he do more than simply touch Him, according to the meanings of the Greek words. My understanding, then, is that Jesus did not want Mary to keep clinging to Him, not that He didn’t want her to touch Him at all. As to Thomas, Jesus requested that he do much more than simply touch Him, but even to go so far as to insert or thrust his hand into His side.
   
   
2. Trying to support some kind of male favoritism on Jesus’ part by comparing His interactions with Mary and Thomas as regards touching is, to me, a strange argument, especially when the definitions of the words are taken into account: Mary, a woman who loved Jesus intensely, was clinging to Him Who had returned from death, and Jesus was ready for her (a woman) to take the news of the gospel to the disciples (as the first one Jesus chose to carry the good news—even to men). As to Thomas, he is often known today as “doubting Thomas,” because he wouldn’t believe the gospel even though others were telling him that Jesus had actually appeared to them. As a side note, I don’t think that the Bible records that Thomas actually touched Jesus in any kind of way. After all, he wouldn’t need to when Jesus was standing right in front of him with the wounds.
   
   
3. I found the parts about Jesus and the church very difficult to follow. It’s not at all clear what was meant by the church, especially with regard to its inception. My understanding of church is that it had not begun by the time that Jesus chose the twelve. If so, then Jesus did not choose twelve church leaders, male or female. Also, all of the twelve He chose were not church leaders, I believe, then or later. I don’t think that many of them were leaders in a church, even though we don’t know all that much about them. Even if the church in general was meant, what about Judas?
   
   
4. The fact is that women as well as men spoke to Jesus (their voices were heard), and He spoke to them. The assertion that the voices of women were not heard is, to me, absurd in the extreme. In addition to women conversing with Jesus, women were heard in the church as well, regardless of when it started. Even if what was meant about the church is that it began as late as Pentecost, the voices of women were heard there—prophesying, right along with the men. I simply cannot go too far with this point, since I cannot imagine anyone actually believing this assertion—even the one who wrote it.
   
   
5. The second paragraph begins with “Therefore.” It is unclear to what this word connects and what sense it makes in the presentation. When I try to make sense of the argument, here is what I come up with: “If women can’t be leaders is the same as misogyny” (false), “then Jesus was sexist for choosing only 12 male church leaders” (false) and in not allowing Mary, a woman, to touch Him after His resurrection (false), but allowing Thomas, a male disciple, to touch Him (false). (The part about Thomas could be true, except that Jesus didn’t allow him to touch; He commanded him to see and to put into. Plus, we don’t know if he did or not. I might be niggling too much here, so I will just concede that this last one could be deemed true.) In my reading, then, since all (or almost all) of the statements made are false, then the “therefore” introduces what cannot be; thereby undermining the whole argument.
   
   
6. To put the twelve disciples in apposition to the first church, as if only they are the first church, is false on two counts: the church was not yet (in my opinion), and the church was larger than just the twelve. One can read the sentence this way: “Therefore, in the first church, the one consisting of only the twelve disciples, the voices of women were not heard ….” I’ll just state that it is difficult for me to take seriously what was written when presented in such a fashion.
   
   
7. If the church was not yet in existence with Jesus and the first twelve disciples (as many or most believe), then there were no affairs of the church to discuss or decide—for males or females. If the church was in existence, how can anyone know who was in which meetings or what was discussed, including whether or not it was high level?
   
   
8. Regarding the Last Supper being mentioned, seemingly as a supportive example of male favoritism on the part of Jesus, it occurred before the crucifixion, not to mention before the resurrection. In other words, I believe that this was pre-church; if anyone believes otherwise, then they can ignore my comments about church timing.
   
   
9. The statement that “the women close to Jesus did not participate” in the Last Supper is not something that is knowable and certainly not something that the Bible supports so as to be stated emphatically. I realize that the Bible does not mention any women being at the Last Supper; by the same token, it does not state that women were not there. (Does the presentation acknowledge this by leaving the door open for women to be there who were not “close to Jesus”?) Many realize that the Bible does not mention every detail about an event and that the gospels themselves present different perspectives of the same events with different details. My understanding of Jewish tradition causes me to think that women might have been there in at least a serving capacity, even if they were not mentioned. If so, then, they would have been participating, contrary to what was stated. In addition, my understanding is that the Jewish Passover was for the whole family as a remembrance and continues so to this day as the Seder. Surely the suggestion is not being made that the Lord’s Table communion, in remembrance of Jesus, should just be done by Christian men.
   
   
10. The presentation suggests that the male disciples were involved with high-level decision-making with Jesus, making the males sound really important somehow. Although definitions of “high level” probably differ, I cannot recall an instance of anyone, male or female, being involved in what I would label high-level decision-making with Jesus. Maybe there was, and I just cannot think of one. My main point is that the Son of God did not really need anyone to be involved in such. I do recall Peter making a few runs at being involved in decision-making with Jesus, and it didn’t turn out well for Him—except, of course, he probably learned some valuable lessons from trying.
    
    
11. Here’s what I believe about the statement, “One would think that if Jesus was truly a social reformer, intending to bring in equality between the sexes, he would have included at least one woman on his team …”: First, Jesus was much more than a mere social reformer. Second, His mission cannot be boiled down to bringing in equality between the sexes. Third, He did include women “on his team.” Therefore, for me, these phrases are flawed and carelessly presented. To bring Jesus down to the level of a mere man and to bring down His mission to just bringing in equality between the sexes, as this writing did for me, is inadvisable, even when couched in such a hypothetical as was used.
    
    
12. Next, we have this statement: “He had no problem being persecuted for meeting with tax collectors and prostitutes, yet he never reversed hundreds of years of Jewish tradition.” (The statement seems to argue against itself.) The very fact that He met with such persons was a reversal. I am not well schooled in Jewish traditions of that day; but, from what I’ve read and heard, many rabbis during the intertestamental period (hundreds of years) were extremely chauvinistic, which would have carried over into the time of Jesus. I think that Jewish women were treated basically like property and were supposed to be, more or less, seen and not heard. After reading what was written, the first thing I thought about was Jesus speaking privately to the Samaritan woman at the well. This was so radical that, when His disciples returned, they marveled that He was speaking to a woman! In addition, during His dialog with her, He revealed that He was the Messiah, and I think that this was the first time the Bible records Him doing so with anyone—male or female. This brought salvation to a town filled with people with whom Jews were to have no dealings. He was definitely operating outside the bounds of traditional Jewish culture, and I imagine that just this one episode would have, at a minimum, reversed the attitudes of the disciples and the townspeople. If you think about how this kind of news travels, I imagine that just this one discussion with a sinful Samaritan woman reversed many people’s traditional views.
    
    
13. The following sentence also has a problem: “Still, there were many women close to Jesus and loved by Jesus, Mary, Martha, etc.” In my reading of this, there were many unnamed women who were close to Jesus, and these women were loved by Jesus, Mary, Martha, etc. Who were these unnamed women who were close to Jesus? Mary, Martha, and their like are, apparently, ruled out. It is, therefore, impossible to know who these many women were, since the ones who might normally be thought of as being close to Him have been taken out of consideration, along with others like them (with an “etc.”). In this conundrum that has been created, maybe the only way out would be for Mary, Martha, etc. to have loved themselves.
    
    
14. According to the presentation, females of that day were happy with their lot, implying, I think, that today’s Christian females should be happy with theirs. Without getting into how anyone might claim to know the thoughts and feelings of females living over two thousand years ago, I might point out what can be known and was not mentioned: There is evidence that not all the males who lived back then were happy with their situations. The Bible shows us at least two males who were involved in jockeying to improve their positions in Jesus’ kingdom, and Christ was not positively impressed. He ended up His talk about it this way:
    

    Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42–45, NASB)

    The next example that comes to mind is this: After the resurrection and after Jesus’ appearances to His disciples, Peter (even after having gone through the boasting before, and the bitterness after, his denial of Jesus) still had the effrontery to question Jesus with, “What shall this man do?” with regard to John. Apparently, this level of involvement in decision-making was “above his pay grade,” because Jesus told him to more or less mind his own business and focus on following Him. Wouldn’t we all, both males and females, be better off taking this advice (which was actually a command)?

I have done my best to try to resolve the ambiguities in the quoted portion of the first post. I probably misunderstood some of it, as it was a struggle to try and follow the logic (or absence thereof). It’s as if Jesus, the twelve, some women, and the church were put in a pot and stirred together with some of the activities mentioned in the Bible, resulting in a stew that was not palatable. I hope that these abbreviated comments will prove helpful in some way to those who read them and that I haven’t inadvertently fallen into error myself or been unclear in my own writing.

[OBW]

John,

Welcome back. Very good analysis. Or at least attempt at analyzing something as unclear as what you had to work with.

As I was reading I was struck by your 5th point.

Originally Posted by John

The second paragraph begins with “Therefore.”

in my studies of things Nee and Lee (from whom our Evangelical friend has learned), I have seen this kind of thing all to often.

All it seems to take is a few sentences strung together and there is now the basis for a "therefore." By saying that, the groundwork is declared to be complete and accurate. Irrelevant that it is hardly on topic or ignores the clear meaning of any scripture (if any) that has been used.

Might as well have said "Therefore, according to the inerrant word of God . . . ." since that is a stronger-sounding claim of certainty, even if hollow and meaningless.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by John

[*]I found the parts about Jesus and the church very difficult to follow. It’s not at all clear what was meant by the church, especially with regard to its inception. My understanding of church is that it had not begun by the time that Jesus chose the twelve. If so, then Jesus did not choose twelve church leaders, male or female. Also, all of the twelve He chose were not church leaders, I believe, then or later. I don’t think that many of them were leaders in a church, even though we don’t know all that much about them. Even if the church in general was meant, what about Judas?

I understand that how we define "church" matters here. To me, if a church is a gathering of believers, then the 12 disciples were a church. Judas would be a tare sowed by Satan.

But whatever we call this group of 12 disciples, e.g. a "pre-church leadership team", the fact remains that it did not include any women.

Originally Posted by John

[*]The fact is that women as well as men spoke to Jesus (their voices were heard), and He spoke to them. The assertion that the voices of women were not heard is, to me, absurd in the extreme. In addition to women conversing with Jesus, women were heard in the church as well, regardless of when it started. Even if what was meant about the church is that it began as late as Pentecost, the voices of women were heard there—prophesying, right along with the men. I simply cannot go too far with this point, since I cannot imagine anyone actually believing this assertion—even the one who wrote it.
[*]The statement that “the women close to Jesus did not participate” in the Last Supper is not something that is knowable and certainly not something that the Bible supports so as to be stated emphatically. I realize that the Bible does not mention any women being at the Last Supper; by the same token, it does not state that women were not there. (Does the presentation acknowledge this by leaving the door open for women to be there who were not “close to Jesus”?) Many realize that the Bible does not mention every detail about an event and that the gospels themselves present different perspectives of the same events with different details. My understanding of Jewish tradition causes me to think that women might have been there in at least a serving capacity, even if they were not mentioned. If so, then, they would have been participating, contrary to what was stated. In addition, my understanding is that the Jewish Passover was for the whole family as a remembrance and continues so to this day as the Seder. Surely the suggestion is not being made that the Lord’s Table communion, in remembrance of Jesus, should just be done by Christian men.

The Last Supper was likely held at Mary the mother of John-Mark's house (Acts 12:12). Yet at the last Supper, no women are mentioned so there were no women at the Last Supper, not even Mary at whose house it was held it would seem. At least, none sitting around the table with Christ. Probably the women were serving. If there were, this would have been a breach of protocol at the time and the bible would record it. Whenever a woman broke protocol, the bible records it.

It is because women did not participate in the Last Supper that women have been traditionally forbidden from "holy orders". In Christianity, women traditionally have not been allowed to serve bread and wine.

Originally Posted by John

[*]The presentation suggests that the male disciples were involved with high-level decision-making with Jesus, making the males sound really important somehow. Although definitions of “high level” probably differ, I cannot recall an instance of anyone, male or female, being involved in what I would label high-level decision-making with Jesus. Maybe there was, and I just cannot think of one. My main point is that the Son of God did not really need anyone to be involved in such. I do recall Peter making a few runs at being involved in decision-making with Jesus, and it didn’t turn out well for Him—except, of course, he probably learned some valuable lessons from trying.

Jesus told his disciples they would sit on 12 thrones and rule the 12 tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28). So no woman would be sitting on thrones it would seem.

This is an argument against a view that God changed His mind in the last days. If God intended in the last days to change His mind about female leadership, then Jesus might have reserved a place for a woman on his leadership team, or reserve a throne for Mary or Martha, for example.

Originally Posted by John

[*]Here’s what I believe about the statement, “One would think that if Jesus was truly a social reformer, intending to bring in equality between the sexes, he would have included at least one woman on his team …”: First, Jesus was much more than a mere social reformer. Second, His mission cannot be boiled down to bringing in equality between the sexes. Third, He did include women “on his team.” Therefore, for me, these phrases are flawed and carelessly presented. To bring Jesus down to the level of a mere man and to bring down His mission to just bringing in equality between the sexes, as this writing did for me, is inadvisable, even when couched in such a hypothetical as was used.

By team I meant leadership team. The 12 disciples were to rule over the 12 tribes of Israel and also had prominent leadership roles in the early church. There were no women on Jesus's leadership team. At the apostle Paul's conversion he did not consult with any female disciples of Christ. He went to see Peter etc.

Originally Posted by John

[*]Next, we have this statement: “He had no problem being persecuted for meeting with tax collectors and prostitutes, yet he never reversed hundreds of years of Jewish tradition.” (The statement seems to argue against itself.) The very fact that He met with such persons was a reversal. I am not well schooled in Jewish traditions of that day; but, from what I’ve read and heard, many rabbis during the intertestamental period (hundreds of years) were extremely chauvinistic, which would have carried over into the time of Jesus. I think that Jewish women were treated basically like property and were supposed to be, more or less, seen and not heard. After reading what was written, the first thing I thought about was Jesus speaking privately to the Samaritan woman at the well. This was so radical that, when His disciples returned, they marveled that He was speaking to a woman! In addition, during His dialog with her, He revealed that He was the Messiah, and I think that this was the first time the Bible records Him doing so with anyone—male or female. This brought salvation to a town filled with people with whom Jews were to have no dealings. He was definitely operating outside the bounds of traditional Jewish culture, and I imagine that just this one episode would have, at a minimum, reversed the attitudes of the disciples and the townspeople. If you think about how this kind of news travels, I imagine that just this one discussion with a sinful Samaritan woman reversed many people’s traditional views.

This is not about that, but about female leadership. It is a mistake to think that just because Jesus spoke to a Samaritan woman that he wants women to be church leaders. Everyone knows that Christianity was an improvement from the state of Judaism in regards to breaking Jewish traditions. However this does not mean that Jesus intended women to function equally to men in all roles such as leadership. I believe God's view of gender equality is when both genders are functioning according to:

1 Cor 11:3 The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God

Man's view of gender equality is something like this:

"The head of every man and woman is Christ and man is not the head of the woman"

Jesus could have easily chosen 6 males and 6 females, as he had broken tradition many times before. The fact that he did not means he had a good reason for only men to be his future leaders in the church.

Originally Posted by John

[*]The following sentence also has a problem: “Still, there were many women close to Jesus and loved by Jesus, Mary, Martha, etc.” In my reading of this, there were many unnamed women who were close to Jesus, and these women were loved by Jesus, Mary, Martha, etc. Who were these unnamed women who were close to Jesus? Mary, Martha, and their like are, apparently, ruled out. It is, therefore, impossible to know who these many women were, since the ones who might normally be thought of as being close to Him have been taken out of consideration, along with others like them (with an “etc.”). In this conundrum that has been created, maybe the only way out would be for Mary, Martha, etc. to have loved themselves.

Jesus would explain his parables to the disciples. Mark 4:34.

When Jesus explained his parables to his disciples privately, were the women present, asking Jesus questions and having Jesus explain to them?

Probably not. This is in accordance with Paul's words that women were to be in silence and learn from their husbands at home.

If Christ had broken protocol by explaining the parables to the women, then this would have been recorded.

We have examples of Christ speaking to women such as the Samaritan woman, but there are no examples of Christ explaining parables or having theological discourse with his female disciples.

"The church did not start as all male and then later become both male and female. Christ's followers were both male and female from the beginning," and yet women were not chosen as leaders. Second, unlike the all-Jewish leadership, "male leadership was perpetuated by those whom Christ initially taught, trained, and to whom He committed the future leadership of His church."[42]

~ James Allen Borland, evangelical professor of biblical studies and theology at Liberty University and former president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Last Supper was likely held at Mary the mother of John-Mark's house (Acts 12:12).

What does Acts 12:12 have to do with the location of the Last Supper?

The record in the gospels is clear, this was a "large upper room" that the disciples were previously unaware of. Obviously not the house of Mary, the mother of John-Mark.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is because women did not participate in the Last Supper that women have been traditionally forbidden from "holy orders". In Christianity, women traditionally have not been allowed to serve bread and wine.

So then you agree that this is not the fellowship of the Apostles but rather a religious tradition similar to those Jesus condemned.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then you agree that this is not the fellowship of the Apostles but rather a religious tradition similar to those Jesus condemned.

The religious traditions in Christianity stemmed from the fellowship of the apostles.

Then it is most likely that the absence of female leadership in those traditions also came from the fellowship of the apostles.

In other words, the religious traditions did not ban female leadership after it was permitted during the time of the apostles.

It simply was not permitted at all during the time of the apostles.

Neither the fellowship of the apostles nor the religious traditions which stemmed from the fellowship of the apostles accepted female leadership.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The religious traditions in Christianity stemmed from the fellowship of the apostles.

Then it is most likely that the absence of female leadership in those traditions also came from the fellowship of the apostles.

Oh, great! Then why not point us to the verses concerning the Apostle's fellowship on this point and lets just cut out the "middle man" of Christian tradition. I think it is well documented that Witness Lee did not respect Christian tradition, and I think it is also well documented that those on this forum do respect the fellowship of the Apostles written down for us in the NT.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus told his disciples they would sit on 12 thrones and rule the 12 tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28). So no woman would be sitting on thrones it would seem.

Seriously? Would you like to rethink that? Jesus said more about who would and would not be sitting on thrones and why. Making a doctrine based on an inference from a single verse while ignoring many other relevant verses is fatally flawed approach.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is not about that, but about female leadership. It is a mistake to think that just because Jesus spoke to a Samaritan woman that he wants women to be church leaders. Everyone knows that Christianity was an improvement from the state of Judaism in regards to breaking Jewish traditions. However this does not mean that Jesus intended women to function equally to men in all roles such as leadership.

Perhaps the mistake is thinking that God wants any leadership other than Jesus, male or female.

A shepherd is a servant of the owner of the sheep. The NT is very clear that both men and women can serve the Lord. There is no limit to what you can do as a servant -- "move mountains", "greater works than these", etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"The church did not start as all male and then later become both male and female. Christ's followers were both male and female from the beginning," and yet women were not chosen as leaders. Second, unlike the all-Jewish leadership, "male leadership was perpetuated by those whom Christ initially taught, trained, and to whom He committed the future leadership of His church."[42]

~ James Allen Borland, evangelical professor of biblical studies and theology at Liberty University and former president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

This is a factual observation from which he infers a doctrine. But there are other equally plausible theories that can be inferred.

For example, the church is a hospital based on the parable of the good samaritan. Many damaged believers will be saved with the need of being restored. One primary focus of this damage is on the family. Hence the NT sets up elders as examples to the flock. This is why it is crucial that an elder be the husband of one wife who has led his family well, and it is crucial that the wife of the elder be able to teach and shepherd the sisters.

There is no such requirement to be an evangelist, or prophet, or apostle, or any other gifted member.

But the church is a family of God and as such God wants certain ones to be set forth as a good example to help the rest of the saints.

Instead of viewing elders as "leaders" which is insulting to Jesus, why not just view them as examples to the flock who are able to teach others. There is no "theological discourse" requirement to be an elder, but there is the requirement to be the husband of one wife, to lead your family well, to be of good reputation in the community.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is a factual observation from which he infers a doctrine. But there are other equally plausible theories that can be inferred.

For example, the church is a hospital based on the parable of the good samaritan. Many damaged believers will be saved with the need of being restored. One primary focus of this damage is on the family. Hence the NT sets up elders as examples to the flock. This is why it is crucial that an elder be the husband of one wife who has led his family well, and it is crucial that the wife of the elder be able to teach and shepherd the sisters.

There is no such requirement to be an evangelist, or prophet, or apostle, or any other gifted member.

But the church is a family of God and as such God wants certain ones to be set forth as a good example to help the rest of the saints.

Instead of viewing elders as "leaders" which is insulting to Jesus, why not just view them as examples to the flock who are able to teach others. There is no "theological discourse" requirement to be an elder, but there is the requirement to be the husband of one wife, to lead your family well, to be of good reputation in the community.

If there are no leaders then the discussion of female leadership is moot.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If there are no leaders then the discussion of female leadership is moot.

Who were Watchman Nee's "Leaders" for the earliest part of his Christian life? Not a trick question, my friend. The answer is well documented.
-

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If there are no leaders then the discussion of female leadership is moot.

Oh, guess you missed my point.

If a key mission of the church is a "hospital" where damaged sinners can recuperate (based on the parable of the Good Samaritan) and if one of the key ways in which people in the world are damaged are the various sins that kill families (fornication, addictions -- alcohol, gambling, drugs, pursuit of getting rich, etc.) then it stands to reason that part of the "treatment" to restore saints would be to help them have a healthy marriage life.

This hypothesis, that the church is concerned with healthy marriages, is supported by the fact that elders must exemplify a healthy marriage (husband of one wife, not a drunkard, good reputation, raise family well).

If the selection of elders with this goal in mind (setting up a healthy example of marriage to the flock as well as providing people who can counsel others) then it becomes obvious that the selection of an elder includes the selection of the elder's wife who must be able to teach the younger women.

My point is not that there is no leadership, but rather those chosen as examples to the flock are chosen as an example of a healthy marriage, hence male and female.

Since Paul requires these elder women to teach the younger it is perfectly reasonable to say that this includes the use of books, videos, TV, radio, blogs, etc. Hence there is no reason a sister could not have a prevailing ministry while having her head fully covered by the fellowship of the apostles.

Also, since women outnumber men in the church (2:1 or more) then it stands to reason that a ministry that ministers to sisters could be twice as impactful as that to men. Perhaps the reason that the NT requires men to fill certain roles is that if we didn't we might become completely insignificant in the church. Or as Paul said "23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness."

[John]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I understand that how we define "church" matters here. To me, if a church is a gathering of believers, then the 12 disciples were a church. Judas would be a tare sowed by Satan.

I was planning to address all or most of Evangelical’s comments, but then my eyes fell on this by him, which warrants special attention:

Judas would be a tare sowed by Satan.

Evangelical initially included Judas as a church leader. Now he has stated that Judas was sown by Satan into the group of twelve disciples (which he called the church). Here is what the Bible states:

Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?" (John 6:70, NASB)

The Bible does not tell us that Jesus chose only eleven disciples and Satan picked the twelfth. It tells us that Jesus chose all twelve disciples—including Judas. His choosing was according to God’s plan. To state that Satan sowed Judas as a tare is to state a blatant falsehood.

Actually, what Evangelical has written is libel against God—or what’s known as blasphemy. He is basically calling God a liar by stating that Satan, not God, put Judas into the group of twelve disciples. For his own sake before God, he should retract this statement and repent for making it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by John

I was planning to address all or most of Evangelical’s comments, but then my eyes fell on this by him, which warrants special attention:

Judas would be a tare sowed by Satan.

Evangelical initially included Judas as a church leader. Now he has stated that Judas was sown by Satan into the group of twelve disciples (which he called the church). Here is what the Bible states:

Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?" (John 6:70, NASB)

The Bible does not tell us that Jesus chose only eleven disciples and Satan picked the twelfth. It tells us that Jesus chose all twelve disciples—including Judas. His choosing was according to God’s plan. To state that Satan sowed Judas as a tare is to state a blatant falsehood.

Jesus knew that Judas was a tare, and chose him knowing that Judas was betray him. The meaning of John 6:70 is that Jesus chose a devil as one of his disciples. He did not tell the others, however. He was like a tare growing among the wheat.

Originally Posted by John

Actually, what Evangelical has written is libel against God—or what’s known as blasphemy. He is basically calling God a liar by stating that Satan, not God, put Judas into the group of twelve disciples. For his own sake before God, he should retract this statement and repent for making it.

God allowed Satan to use Judas.

[Drake]

"Actually, what Evangelical has written is libel against God—or what’s known as blasphemy. He is basically calling God a liar by stating that Satan, not God, put Judas into the group of twelve disciples. For his own sake before God, he should retract this statement and repent for making it."

We could test it by seeing if he sinks or floats..... but probably a little water boarding is all that is needed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus knew that Judas was a tare, and chose him knowing that Judas was betray him. The meaning of John 6:70 is that Jesus chose a devil as one of his disciples. He did not tell the others, however. He was like a tare growing among the wheat.
God allowed Satan to use Judas.

If you wish to gather all data on Judas you should read The Gospel of Judas :
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lo...pelofJudas.pdf

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This opening post by Evangelical brings forth some very legitimate arguments.
Let's take a break from addressing some of these peripheral and esoteric issues,
such as head covering and length of hair, and get back to the heart of the matter.

My wife likes to watch Christian TV, (I find little I can stomach) and recently she was watching Taffi Creflo teach on women's role in the church.

From what I saw, she taught that the entire basis for traditional gender roles in the church and in society were all based on the fall, when God told Eve (Gen 3.16) "he shall rule over you." Originally man and woman were "equal," and in Christ God has returned us to our original status. (Whatever that is, I didn't hear the whole message.)

Thoughts on this???

(P.S. She and her husband take in $Millions, and I think many of her listeners would really like to enjoy an "equal" paycheck with them.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Remember, God did not create women first. They were not originally in God's plan for mankind, until God saw that the animals alone were not enough for Adam. Paul's reason for not allowing women in positions of authority was simply because Adam was created first:
1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.

Paul said "I permit not a woman to teach" -- yet we have already established that this does not refer to Priscilla taking Apollos aside and correcting him, nor does it refer to elder sisters teaching younger sisters, nor does it refer to sisters speaking in the meetings since Paul said that if they speak they should have their heads covered. What is abundantly clear from any fair reading of the Apostle Paul is that this portion in 1Tim2 must be a specific context, because it cannot refer to meetings generally, or teaching in a general way. I have not heard any other way to reconcile the various teachings of Paul on this matter.

I think the context of 1Tim 2 is clearly the church dealing with the Gentile authorities -- kings and all those in high place.

This context is similar to a company forbidding any employee to talk to the press, but rather to refer any requests from the press to those assigned to dealing with the press. That would fit the context and fit our experience.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In my experience, 1 Peter 3:4 does not describe most women I know involved in feminism movements. God is not impressed at women trying to achieve high positions of authority in the church with their boldness and loudness. He is rather, impressed by women who can suppress their ambitions, if any, and become a gentle and quiet spirit, in support of leaders.

Just because a female may be very spiritual, even more spiritual then men, it does not qualify them for a leadership position over men. Sarah for example may have been far more spiritual than Abraham, yet she was still obliged to call him her master.

To me, it is about God's creation and how male and female were created differently. There is something in most men, in their God-given DNA that does not want nor require women to be their leaders. There is also something ingrained in most women I know, that causes them to not desire to be leaders. The situation of male leaders and female supporters mirrors the life of Abraham and Sarah, and the intended purpose for women to be helpers for men. God created Eve intending her to be a helper for Adam, not his leader.

This opening post by Evangelical brings forth some very legitimate arguments.
Let's take a break from addressing some of these peripheral and esoteric issues,
such as head covering and length of hair, and get back to the heart of the matter.

-

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This opening post by Evangelical brings forth some very legitimate arguments.
Let's take a break from addressing some of these peripheral and esoteric issues,
such as head covering and length of hair, and get back to the heart of the matter.

-

UntoHim,

What exactly is the "heart of the matter"? Were we ever "there", making it possible to "get back" to the heart?

Based on the "Evangelical" body of work, it's difficult for me to accept the arguments of this man, flowery as they may be, as anything but a mysogynist in sheep's clothing. Woman was created as a "help" to man, but this mysogynist has defined "help" from a mans-eye-view and refused to consider any other perspective. Is it conceivable that God would help man through woman, and some help is only available from a woman?

Is the heart of the matter---the role of woman---that of a helper? If so, how can a woman help a man? Is it conceivable that God created woman to be a spiritual help to man? Is it conceivable that helpers, such as Jane Carole Anderson, are gifted with a spiritual perspective, unseen by man, but intended by God to help men to see woman as HE sees woman?

This forum is blessed with a few men who are willing accept spiritual insight and perspective from a woman---to be helped by a woman---but I don't see Evangelical as one of those men. For a man to receive help from anyone, either male or female, they must (1) put aside their ego and be willing to admit, or submit, to the possibility that they actually need help. (2) In order to be helped by a woman, men must LISTEN to a woman. That means, hear her out with an open mind BEFORE determining the sex of the speaker and dismissing her according to your predetermined gender bias. That means, read what she says (such as Jane Carol Anderson's book/s) and not comment on what you "think" she says, but what she actually SAYS---in context and not piece meal comments here and there. (3) People are sometimes ignorant of their need for help.

Evangelical doesn't know everything. Evangelical, you don't know everything. All members need to realize their place in the Body as needing all the other members. Women in the Body, and women in general, were given the specific designation of "helper". God indeed also speaks through female members of the body---women. Women were set in the Body as it pleased HIM. Not you.

If God made the woman as a helper, why do men refuse her help? Or, why do men only accept her help if it passes through his man-filter? Some men you just can't help. It's not only your loss, but loss to the Body.

Nell

[Evangelical]

I sort of agree with Nell about the heart of the matter not being the heart of the matter. But I think UntoHim wanted to change the course of this discussion and make what he quoted of me the "heart of the matter", so happy to go with that.

But we should keep in mind that the parts UntoHim has quoted of my first post, was only part of a more complete genuine reply to QOSTA which UntoHim decided to break off to create a new thread.

So for that reason I think my post needs to be read in perspective and context that it was in reply to QOSTA who made some claims about the local churches such as women not being able to hold positions of power in their own right. Well I am thinking she does not have much experience or knowledge of the local church as , as UntoHim attested to, the local churches do not have "positions of power" as such, but a plurality of elders.

I think on this topic it doesn't really matter anyway whether one believes in RC-style leadership or brethren style leadership - whether women can't be priests in a Cathedral or women can't be elders in a house church is based upon the same fundamental passages of Scripture, and tradition (in the case of RC, Orthodox etc).

But then UntoHim said I am talking about leadership in a "different manner" and " you are speaking of leadership in a different manner than Witness Lee taught" and not picking up on the fact that multiple posters, including Ohio and Nell and the person I was replying to was talking about leadership in a "different manner" to what Witness Lee taught. But as I said before, I don't think it matters to the topic at hand on women's role.

Nell was even stressing the WHATEVER in the verse:
God told Abraham to do WHATEVER his wife tells him.

indicating Nell believes women should have the upper hand in the relationship and do whatever the woman says, contravening God's laws of headship and order and Paul's commands, when Paul says women should be in ALL subjection (1 Tim 2:11).

How can one verse say to the man to do WHATEVER his wife tells him and at the same time the woman is in ALL subjection?

So naturally I proceeded to show how God intended man to be the head of the woman and not the other way around and also not as "two heads".

Then ZNP brought a different perspective to the discussion. ZNP's balanced perspective of women holding power through marriage to the elder/leader has merit although I disagree with him that single or childless men cannot be elders because that would rule out Paul who was single and even Jesus himself who was single and childless. It does not seem to be a plain reading of the text and even "go to" evangelical websites like gotquestions.org disagrees with his view.

With Janes book I assessed it on its merit and not for the fact she is a woman. (In another thread I also assessed Hon's book based upon the information available to me and he is a man). I can't see how exactly Jane's book is helping men when it's basically centered around the same old Christian feminist ideals as Bushnell held - it even throws in some of her inventive twists on the Garden of Eden story which some members of this forum are not comfortable with.

Now supposedly the English versions of the bible are wrong as Jane/Bushnell/Nell and others say. [This view might be cast down pretty quickly on other forums just for the simple fact that some Christians, (usually fundamentalist evangelical) strongly believe in God's ability to preserve His Word even through translation after translation after translation. ]

Unlike them, I believe they do have translation errors, but I think it's rather convenient that all the translation errors happen to line up with key passages that destroy the feminist arguments. For the feminist argument to work, all the ducks have to in a row, all of the verses in question must be "incorrect translations". In reality however, only some or few may possibly be mistranslated or misconstrued. Sure, some verses in Hebrew may be inaccurately translated. But Paul's words in the Greek are fairly plain, at least for modern Greek NT scholars.

If the original Greek is the "true version" of the bible and our English translations are wrong, a logical thing to do would be to consult some Greek experts to see if it is really so. So I consulted bible.org and D. Wallace, and found there's little correlation between Wallace's view and Bushnell/Janes view in terms of the original Greek translations. Bushnell/Jane does not seem to have the backing of leading modern Greek NT scholars like Wallace and his colleagues, as one might expect if translation errors were so ubiquitous.

I think it's really just another attempt by Satan to destroy marriages and families by inverting God's original intention, as my bible says, women are more easily deceived (1 Tim 2:14), so Eve/ Bushnell/Jane/Nell are the more easily deceived ones, and men who follow them are like Adam eating the fruit of knowledge once again. That's why I'd bet on what Wallace says more than what Bushnell says, and the fact that God is a man, Jesus is a man, the angels are all male,the 12 disciples are all male. "Gender bias" is not a sin, it's biblical, and all the notions of "equality" and such are from the modern world and society not from the bible, though they try their hardest to make the bible agree with them, citing "mistranslated passages" at whim.

[UntoHim]

Thanks to Nell and Evangelical for their thoughtful posts.

Just to be clear, I don't pretend to know the heart of the matter in this particular thread. (I just know that head covering, length of hair, etc is not) Furthermore, at the risk of offending any of my brothers out there, I think the heart of this matter can best be defined and expounded upon by the women/sisters out there. I appreciate Nell jumping back into the fray.

Evangelical, the reason I split this thread off from the original is because the original post was posted in the "Introduction and Testimonies" thread, and I wanted to split this off because the subject matter deserved a separate airing apart from and beyond the theme of a thread which has a very specific purpose.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But then UntoHim said I am talking about leadership in a "different manner" and " you are speaking of leadership in a different manner than Witness Lee taught" and not picking up on the fact that multiple posters, including Ohio and Nell and the person I was replying to was talking about leadership in a "different manner" to what Witness Lee taught. But as I said before, I don't think it matters to the topic at hand on women's role.

Sorry Mr. E, in case you haven't noticed yet, Witness Lee does NOT get a pass (free or otherwise) for his blatant hypocrisy around these parts. Witness Lee was apt to teach a biblical version/understanding of a certain notion, and with the next breath go off the rails and teach a non-biblical, or even heretical version/understanding of the very same notion. Either leadership is not "official, permanent, or organizational", or it is. Leadership "always depends upon spiritual capacity", or it does not. If leadership is not official, permanent or organizational, then you should have no problem with women/sisters taking leadership in an unofficial, non-permanent, unorganizational way. If leadership always depends upon spiritual capacity, then you should have no problem with a woman/sister who exhibits a superior spiritual capacity (relative to the brothers and sisters in her locality) taking the lead in a certain area of service to the church.

Maybe Nell would like to expound and/or expand upon what I've posted here. Again, since this thread is about "Women's Role", I think it is fair and reasonable to let our sisters "take the lead" in this thread.
-

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Maybe Nell would like to expound and/or expand upon what I've posted here. Again, since this thread is about "Women's Role", I think it is fair and reasonable to let our sisters "take thWhe lead" in this thread.
-

UntoHim,

I believe "taking the lead" is overrated. I believe "authority" in the church is in the hands of our Lord Jesus, since all authority was given to Him.

Many years ago when I was a "childrens worker" in a locality, I never "officially" became a "leader". However, in fact, I was responsible. I was capable. I was loving and caring of the children in my group as well as the sister I was serving with. The sisters depended on me and the children loved me and all treated me with respect. Was I a de facto "leader"? Maybe? I never considered myself as being anything other than the person God made me to be. He placed me where He did, because of who and what I was because of Him. I flourished in that role because God did it. Not me.

One day, the Big Dog Childrens Work "coordinator" had a meeting with all the workers. While glaring at me, rudely, in front of everyone, with a nasty frown and angry eyes, he pronounced that sister so-and-so was now the leader of my group and turning his head toward me he said "If anybody has problems with that, they can come see me."

Did I give one rip that he publicly and rudely fired me from a job that was never mine...that I never asked for? Did his rude behavior change who I am or what I was? No. It didn't. Did he remove the gift God had given me...the gift of responsibility, capabilities, loving and caring for others? No. He did not. Big Dog never even bothered to tell me what I had done, if anything, to deserve such rude behavior and disrespect. So I stopped being me.

As I said, authority is overrated and misunderstood. Those who exercise authority often have no gift and are blind as a bat...as Big Dog was and probably still is. Those who may have even a small gift, as I believe I did, wouldn't touch a position of "authority" with a ten-foot-pole. I also believe that the more Evangelical rants about men having authority over women, the less he knows what he is talking about.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Either leadership is not "official, permanent, or organizational", or it is. Leadership "always depends upon spiritual capacity", or it does not. If leadership is not official, permanent or organizational, then you should have no problem with women/sisters taking leadership in an unofficial, non-permanent, unorganizational way. If leadership always depends upon spiritual capacity, then you should have no problem with a woman/sister who exhibits a superior spiritual capacity (relative to the brothers and sisters in her locality) taking the lead in a certain area of service to the church.
-

To be a church elder is clearly "official" in the sense that people (men, not women) were appointed:

Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church

It is this roles to which have belonged to men exclusively in the history of the church.

But it is not official in the sense of being organizational and permanent as in the Catholic or protestant systems. Those who get appointed as elders must have spiritual capacity to match or be appointed because of their spiritual capacity.

According to ZNP's testimony, there are many women in (unofficial) leadership positions in the LC, 90% of the decisions regarding the church were influenced by the sisters and an office for the training was run with an "Iron fist" by a sister.

For this reason I don't think the local churches have a problem with sisters taking leadership in unofficial, non-permanent, organizational ways. I fail to see exactly what is the problem.

That's why I say that it's important to consider that QOSTA's post and my response were in relation to eldership only as per Acts 14:23. I have never taken issue with women in unofficial leadership roles as ZNP illustrated.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nell was even stressing the WHATEVER in the verse:
God told Abraham to do WHATEVER his wife tells him.

indicating Nell believes women should have the upper hand in the relationship and do whatever the woman says, contravening God's laws of headship and order and Paul's commands, when Paul says women should be in ALL subjection (1 Tim 2:11).

As a mysogynist, DO NOT presume to tell others what I believe. You don't know me. You don't know what I believe. I didn't "indicate" anything. I quoted a verse. I believe what the verse says, and that would be what God said. Not me. Do I believe the Bible? Yes.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

As a mysogynist, DO NOT presume to tell others what I believe. You don't know me. You don't know what I believe. I didn't "indicate" anything. I quoted a verse. I believe what the verse says, and that would be what God said. Not me. Do I believe the Bible? Yes.

Wait Nell.

There is no evidence that Evangelical is a misogynist...none... your characterization is uncalled for and it sounds as if you are frustrated or angry. Do you mean to express it that way?

Anytime a CAP or a bold is played it means something special to call attention to, a point to emphasize, to give it special meaning or priority. When I originally read your "WHATEVER" post I wondered if you meant WHATEVER about anything at all, or if you meant WHATEVER to the specific thing being discussed at the moment. I went back and read it again and it was clear it was about what Sarah had already spoken "in all that Sarah hath said unto thee" not that he should take his direction from Sarah in everything going forward.She wanted to toss Hagar and her son out for understandable reasons, Abraham was distressed about the idea, and God told him to listen to Sarah in this matter. I don't remember if God ever did that again with the two of them. Also, God did go to Abraham and instructed him to listen to his wife... and God did not go to Sarah and tell her to go tell Abraham what to do (she already did that without being prompted).

Yet, I do not want to be guilty of putting words in your mouth so WHAT did you mean by "WHATEVER"?

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

As a mysogynist, DO NOT presume to tell others what I believe. You don't know me. You don't know what I believe. I didn't "indicate" anything. I quoted a verse. I believe what the verse says, and that would be what God said. Not me. Do I believe the Bible? Yes.

I did not mean to make a thing out of it just explaining the logical progression in my postings and evolution of the discussion. Use of capital letters could be considered to be antagonizing.

I'm thinking you would have done the same if I quoted the verse and capitalized the ALL in "women must be in ALL subjection". Wouldn't that indicate something? But I think we should hold onto the good which comes out of these discussions and I do learn some things from your posts. Just because I disagree does not mean I am not learning or listening.