A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies by Jane Carole Anderson

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hmmm, well maybe. But also one might question that, if there is no male and female, then why aren't there more females in certain roles? So it can cut both ways.

Because of what the bible says about female teachers, I would discount any notion of their ministries being blessed by God, on the same basis that I would discount any LGBT, muslim, or buddhist ministry as being "blessed by God". Our assessments of "God's blessing" is flawed when it is based upon external matters such as frequency of answered prayers, outward blessings, church growth, or financial blessing. These same metrics may be used by any ministry even non-Christian one, to conclude it is "under God's blessing". I am sure the hundreds of Muslims that attend the Mosque every week feel blessed by God. If we think like that then we are being like Job's friends.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Because of what the bible says about female teachers, I would discount any notion of their ministries being blessed by God, on the same basis that I would discount any LGBT, muslim, or buddhist ministry as being "blessed by God". Our assessments of "God's blessing" is flawed when it is based upon external matters such as frequency of answered prayers, outward blessings, church growth, or financial blessing. These same metrics may be used by any ministry even non-Christian one, to conclude it is "under God's blessing". I am sure the hundreds of Muslims that attend the Mosque every week feel blessed by God. If we think like that then we are being like Job's friends.

Likewise with such external metrics as one church one city, having copyrights to some God-ordained church name, accepting the so-called minister of the age, claims to be the only true testimony, etc.

[Nell]

The notion that the Bible was penned by "all males" does not take into account, for example, that there is widespread discussion that the book of Hebrews was written by Priscilla (wife of Acquila). The author of Hebrews is not identified in the book itself so to state out of hand that the author of all books in the Bible are "male" is intellectually dishonest and belies the possibility that a woman penned Hebrews and perhaps other books as well. Such statements should be qualified as being "your opinion" and not authoritative.

Drake has remarked: "...if Jane Anderson has a point of view then let's see it. I'm willing to hear her out on one or more of these "lemon" verses."

Uh...Jane wrote a book. The best way to hear her out is to spend $2.99 and download the Kindle version. I will soon, hopefully, be able to post a Readers Digest condensed version of a few major points, but this takes time. It's a good read. You might actually enjoy it.

https://www.amazon.com/Books-Jane-Ca...ole%20Anderson

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

The notion that the Bible was penned by "all males" does not take into account, for example, that there is widespread discussion that the book of Hebrews was written by Priscilla (wife of Acquila). The author of Hebrews is not identified in the book itself so to state out of hand that the author of all books in the Bible are "male" is intellectually dishonest and belies the possibility that a woman penned Hebrews and perhaps other books as well. Such statements should be qualified as being "your opinion" and not authoritative.

Drake has remarked: "...if Jane Anderson has a point of view then let's see it. I'm willing to hear her out on one or more of these "lemon" verses."

Uh...Jane wrote a book. The best way to hear her out is to spend $2.99 and download the Kindle version. I will soon, hopefully, be able to post a Readers Digest condensed version of a few major points, but this takes time. It's a good read. You might actually enjoy it.

https://www.amazon.com/Books-Jane-Ca...ole%20Anderson

If we read into that a bit further we'll find that scholars have suggested it's authorship was hidden by the early church fathers or early Christians out of embarrassment that it was written by a woman or so as not to cause offense.

Let us also ask the question of how many women were involved in defining the Canon of Scripture, the creeds, or the doctrine of the Trinity?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let us also ask the question of how many women were involved in defining the Canon of Scripture, the creeds, or the doctrine of the Trinity?

This is a classic case of begging the question.

In the context of a discussion that is suggesting that men have been domineering because of their (mis)understanding of scripture you want to use the number of men v women as a yardstick to support the position that men did the heavy lifting, not the women? Or otherwise suggest that men are superior? That is a statement that cannot be made since the lack of women was not their inability to be involved or contribute, but the fact that they were excluded. And if there was a lack, that could be because the women were generally not educated the same as men. Not that they were somehow intrinsically inferior.

Please provide relevance so this discussion.

This is like relying on the words of Lee claiming a position to be correct as evidence that he is correct. Not talking about whether what he said aligns properly with scripture, but whether what he said/wrote can support his own assertions without scripture or even though contrary to scripture. It doesn't matter how right or wrong he ultimately is proved to be. Until it is proved from something other than his own claim of correctness, his words are what are being questioned, not what are being consulted to determine their own correctness.

The exclusion of women from things like the creation of the creeds or the determination of the canon of scripture is the issue that needs analysis and therefore cannot be used as proof that women should be excluded. We obviously are not going to rethink the canon of scripture if we determine that the exclusion of women was contrary to a proper understanding of the "place" of women according to scripture. But we cannot use that historical fact as proof that it should have been that way.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is a classic case of begging the question.

In the context of a discussion that is suggesting that men have been domineering because of their (mis)understanding of scripture you want to use the number of men v women as a yardstick to support the position that men did the heavy lifting, not the women? Or otherwise suggest that men are superior? That is a statement that cannot be made since the lack of women was not their inability to be involved or contribute, but the fact that they were excluded. And if there was a lack, that could be because the women were generally not educated the same as men. Not that they were somehow intrinsically inferior.

Please provide relevance so this discussion.

This is like relying on the words of Lee claiming a position to be correct as evidence that he is correct. Not talking about whether what he said aligns properly with scripture, but whether what he said/wrote can support his own assertions without scripture or even though contrary to scripture. It doesn't matter how right or wrong he ultimately is proved to be. Until it is proved from something other than his own claim of correctness, his words are what are being questioned, not what are being consulted to determine their own correctness.

The exclusion of women from things like the creation of the creeds or the determination of the canon of scripture is the issue that needs analysis and therefore cannot be used as proof that women should be excluded. We obviously are not going to rethink the canon of scripture if we determine that the exclusion of women was contrary to a proper understanding of the "place" of women according to scripture. But we cannot use that historical fact as proof that it should have been that way.

I think facts such as these speak for themselves.

Where were the women when decision were made about which books should be considered part of the Canon?

Likewise, where were the women when the doctrine of the Trinity was defined?

Which Creeds were written by women? The apostles creed? The Nicene creed?

Likewise, in the Reformation, we know about Luther, Calvin etc. Where were the women?

Has there been any major move of God over the past centuries with a female leader? Maybe Kathryn Kuhlman?

I think it is related to Jesus choosing only males as his closest disciples. That tradition continued in the early church - there were no female bishops. We hear a lot about early church fathers, were there early church mothers?

I have read about the matter of why the author of Hebrews is unnamed, and some, have suggested that if it were written by a woman, there is good reason why that fact should be hidden. Yes on the one hand it is positive that at least one woman possibly (hypothesis only) wrote a book of the bible. On the other hand it is a negative if her authorship was hidden because of male domination at the time.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think facts such as these speak for themselves.

They do speak. They say something. But only someone with the view of a patriarchal system where women are property or second-class citizens would presume that what it is saying is that it was ordained to be that way.

It was ordained that Cain would kill Abel. It was ordained that slavery would be commonplace for centuries. It was ordained that women be excluded from any important acts in society other than bearing and raising children and cooking meals.

What you fail to consider is that it may simply be saying that the doors were locked and two big guys named Bruno and Rufus were standing outside with Glocks.

This is how Lee came up with so many of his novel teachings (and Nee too). Read something. Declare that nothing except his version of how it should be understood is valid. Declare a new prescriptive doctrine.

The stupidity of your opening sentence is that it is simply an observation of action by people who are acting in concert with the very problem that we are trying to figure out. The fact of their action cannot be accepted as the reason that their action was correct. That is circular reasoning. It is classic begging the question.

Planes flew into the World Trade Center. What principle does this prove? That it was correct for planes to fly into the World Trade Center.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have read about the matter of why the author of Hebrews is unnamed, and some, have suggested that if it were written by a woman, there is good reason why that fact should be hidden. Yes on the one hand it is positive that at least one woman possibly (hypothesis only) wrote a book of the bible. On the other hand it is a negative if her authorship was hidden because of male domination at the time.

It does not occur to you that in what was still mostly a male dominated society that hiding the fact (if it is a fact) of a woman writer for Hebrews was the way to get it read by the dim-witted men that would otherwise just reject it without as much as a second look? And that men are still doing that to this day? Your mention of Luther and others yet no women is hardly surprising given that Christianity has continued to understand its primary source text as relegating women to the back row, or outside watching video monitors.

The question as to whether that is the right thing to do in light of all of the scripture (not just one or two verses) must be studied from within the scripture, not by reference to how the people who already had an opinion on the subject did things. If your way was the way to go, then slavery would still be the norm because the fact that there was slavery would prove that there should be slavery.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Because of what the bible says about female teachers, I would discount any notion of their ministries being blessed by God, on the same basis that I would discount any LGBT, muslim, or buddhist ministry as being "blessed by God". Our assessments of "God's blessing" is flawed when it is based upon external matters such as frequency of answered prayers, outward blessings, church growth, or financial blessing. These same metrics may be used by any ministry even non-Christian one, to conclude it is "under God's blessing". I am sure the hundreds of Muslims that attend the Mosque every week feel blessed by God. If we think like that then we are being like Job's friends.

Well, the fact of the matter is Jesus said "by their fruit you will know them." And I have no doubt of the good fruit of many of these ministries. There is also the witness in my spirit of the anointing of the Spirit on many of these ministries.

Paul also said women should keep silent in churches. But even Nee and Lee realized an extreme interpretation of this did not add up and allowed female speaking. As for teaching and having authority over a man, I believe Paul was talking about the kind of teaching he knew, pre-written-NT, where he and the other apostles taught with the equivalent authority we now reserve only to the Bible. Women did not take part in that. But interpreting the Bible and teaching from it is not the same thing. Just because a women teaches doesn't mean she holds authority in the way Paul meant. We are free to listen as the Spirit leads. The Spirit and the Bible are our final authority now. In Paul's day it was the Spirit and the Apostles. They had a kind of authority that is now reserved to the Bible. (And, no, Lee didn't have it.)