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

[Drake]

OBW ,

Fewer lectures and more subject matter please. Thanks.

I do not believe that it is the church's mission to change society. Rather to hasten the One who will establish the kingdom that will reign in righteousness and endure forever. I do not see any substantial evidence in the Bible either. That is not say that we don't participate or engage in worthy goals to change things. Paul did not seek to eliminate slavery yet in Christ Philemon was a brother as was his slave and the human relationship between them was not transferable yet Paul respected it but still tried to arbitrate in the confines of that norm in that day.

There are many injustices in the world and I have and am involved in rectifying those I can influence. Yet, that is not the mission of the church.

Aron's points on behavior are compelling.

Hope that is clearer.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW ,

Fewer lectures and more subject matter please. Thanks.

Thanks
Drake

Drake scolding another poster for "lecturing."

Now that's funny!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW ,

Fewer lectures and more subject matter please. Thanks.

Drake

Drake,

To what "subject matter" are you referring? The subject matter of this topic is a book: A Woman of Chayil. Like Ohio, I think it's hilarious that you would call out anyone for subject matter infraction when you are a primary subject matter offender. I see no indication that you have made a single "on topic" post on this thread. In fact, I seem to be the only member who is "on topic."

Please limit your comments to the book, A Woman of Chayil. You and your buddy.

Nell

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

Drake,

To what "subject matter" are you referring? The subject matter of this topic is a book: A Woman of Chayil. Like Ohio, I think it's hilarious that you would call out anyone for subject matter infraction when you are a primary subject matter offender. I see no indication that you have made a single "on topic" post on this thread. In fact, I seem to be the only member who is "on topic."

Please limit your comments to the book, A Woman of Chayil. You and your buddy.

Nell

Sure Nell. Here you go.

The subject of slavery as a human construct may be as easily applied to woman's issues. They are issues that are not in Christ because in Him there is no male female slave or freeman. Whereas I see some logic to Jane's argument I am not convinced that there isnt some influence with these human issues in her thinking. Outside in. Or, more likely, her negative experience has caused her to view things through the filter of her experience. That would be understandable but not portable. Since the subject of slavery was brought up I responded to it as a similar construct since no one here is or has been a slave it is easier to talk about the logic and remove the emotion. I recommend you head off off topic discussions when you first see them if that is important to you.

Like slavery in the Bible, the women's issue of equality or being in subjection is not a central mission of the church. Paul did not try to end slavery or rebel against the antichrist emperor Nero. Apparently he underscored Gods arrangement concerning woman and man Jane's forceful argument notwithstanding.

Drake

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sure Nell. Here you go.

The subject of slavery as a human construct may be as easily applied to woman's issues. They are issues that are not in Christ because in Him there is no male female slave or freeman. Whereas I see some logic to Jane's argument I am not convinced that there isnt some influence with these human issues in her thinking. Outside in. Or, more likely, her negative experience has caused her to view things through the filter of her experience. That would be understandable but not portable. Since the subject of slavery was brought up I responded to it as a similar construct since no one here is or has been a slave it is easier to talk about the logic and remove the emotion. I recommend you head off off topic discussions when you first see them if that is important to you.

Like slavery in the Bible, the women's issue of equality or being in subjection is not a central mission of the church. Paul did not try to end slavery or rebel against the antichrist emperor Nero. Apparently he underscored Gods arrangement concerning woman and man Jane's forceful argument notwithstanding.

Drake

What argument? What are you referencing in WOC?

Nell

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

What argument? What are you referencing in WOC?

Nell

Jane has no argument?

Well then what is her point?

Drake

[Drake]

OBW) "And having the notion that we should subjugate our wives is NOT part of right-living"

I don't know anybody like that. I knew a brother once who was very overbearing but I think she divorced him.

Here's the thing OBW. I probably agree with some of your points but it's difficult to know for sure even after reading your posts several times. In general, there are many human constructs that the Bible seems to overlook or tolerate for the time being. Someone challenged the pouring out of expensive ointment citing the poor could have benefitted from it to which the Lord dismissed the complaint saying we always have the poor with us. He was not being indifferent to the poor, but He did state a fact that there can be other priorities (in this case related to His death). Or slavery or forms government. And yes, the arrangement of husband and wives They are all part of the same general category of human things in the fallen cosmos that will be with us till the One who rules in righteousness sets everything in order.

Andersons argument (lemons) overreaches. Whereas I think she makes some valid points, I also think she is goes too far in the application of the "lemons" and in forcing interpretations of scripture to make her point.

Drake

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Nell

What argument? What are you referencing in WOC?

Nell

Jane has several arguments. Which one are you talking about? Where is it in
WOC?

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

I do not believe that it is the church's mission to change society. Rather to hasten the One who will establish the kingdom that will reign in righteousness and endure forever.

Just as your sect's view is that it is not the church's mission to do any kind of benevolence to those who are not part of your sect.

But if you note, my concern was not what was wrong with society, but what was wrong with the people of God whether or not that does or does not mirror society. The fight of the 1800s was to maintain slavery as an acceptable practice for Christians. It was also the fight of society at large.

In this case, we are not concerned whether the role and view of women is mirrored in society. In Western society the role and view of women is better than it is within the church (at least certain parts of the church — including the parts that many of us, including those in the LRC, are attached to). And that is despite the continued existence of some level of "glass ceiling" facing many women. And in other parts of the world, the role and view of women is still worse than it was in Jewish society at the time of Christ. Quite a disparity of views/roles. But for us, the first issue should be to carefully study how it should be within the church. Not study the answers that are predicated on the previous generation's answers, which are predicated upon the previous generation's answers (and on and on) back to the time of the writing of the NT. That is how the SBC went about defending slavery in the 1800s. And others used the Bible to segregate (and subjugate without actual slavery) in more recent years.

There is a hierarchy to the Bible, even within the NT. The Jews referred to what we call the OT as the law and prophets, and the commentary. While it is all inspired by God and profitable for teaching, the commentary arises in response to the specifics of the time and situation. Same can be said for the NT. There are the gospels. Then there is the commentary. The commentary is scripture, but it is designed to comment into the specific, not provide the base framework in which everything works. The framework is in the words and deeds of Jesus. When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, he granted her a status higher than a devout Jew would to a proper Jewish woman. Just one example.

What your "church's mission" statement fails to recognize is that the Kingdom is here right now. But as long as we fail to live that kingdom in every aspect of our lives, it is not ready to burst forth in full. And living that kingdom is not about better lexicons, high meetings, better teachings, etc. It is about all aspects of the right-living of its participants. And having the attitude that my sick wife just needs to call on the Lord and continue doing the dishes while I go to my study and do (whatever) is NOT part of right-living.

And having the notion that we should subjugate our wives is NOT part of right-living. I'm not talking about some general understanding of position before God (God over man over woman) but the attitude of what that means to us.

Besides, the Bible didn't tell me that the woman is supposed to submit (no matter what that is to mean) but it tells her to submit. God tells her to submit, not me (or you).

And we think that God is going to hasten his kingdom for people who are getting this so entirely wrong (assuming it is wrong). I know the mantra that the law is abolished. But if you look closely, that is a misunderstanding of what is abolished. The law was not written on our hearts so that we could be free to ignore it. Rather that we would be quick to obey.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

I do not believe that it is the church's mission to change society. Rather to hasten the One who will establish the kingdom that will reign in righteousness and endure forever.

The problem with that position is that it is difficult to conceive the latter taking place without the former occurring to some degree. How can a significant segment of society (the Church) be living in such a way as to cause the Lord of All to return to earth and yet their living still have no affect on the world around them?

We are the salt of the earth, our Lord told us. That clearly states we are to have some affect on the world. I believe most of that affect is the indirect result of our right living. But who can say for sure what level of "direct" attempt to change things is inappropriate, so long as it is in the Spirit? We cannot judge for others. So if you would rather read HWMRs and meet only with those you are comfortable with, fine. Just don't look down on others who feel to reach out more.

I don't think it's so simple as to say that the Church is not supposed to change the world. Jesus changed history. The church has too. One example is the missionaries who risked their lives to reach out to the murderous Huaorani tribe of Central America. Dramatized in the movie "The End of the Spear", this was the tribe in which something like 40% of the people were, over time, murdered by the others. They simply thought the way to solve conflicts was to kill each other. Totally demonic. Now, through the faith and sacrifice of missionaries, they are a peaceful Christ-centered society. So not only were some people changed, a whole society was changed. You can't change people without changing society to some extent.

I'm sorry, but sometimes this "our call is not to change society" talk sounds like an excuse for being impotent.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem with that position is that it is difficult to conceive the latter taking place without the former occurring to some degree. How can a significant segment of society (the Church) be living in such a way as to cause the Lord of All to return to earth and yet their living still have no affect on the world around them?

We are the salt of the earth, our Lord told us. That clearly states we are to have some affect on the world. I believe most of that affect is the indirect result of our right living. But who can say for sure what level of "direct" attempt to change things is inappropriate, so long as it is in the Spirit? We cannot judge for others. So if you would rather read HWMRs and meet only with those you are comfortable with, fine. Just don't look down on others who feel to reach out more.

I don't think it's so simple as to say that the Church is not supposed to change the world. Jesus changed history. The church has too. One example is the missionaries who risked their lives to reach out to the murderous Huaorani tribe of Central America. Dramatized in the movie "The End of the Spear", this was the tribe in which something like 40% of the people were, over time, murdered by the others. They simply thought the way to solve conflicts was to kill each other. Totally demonic. Now, through the faith and sacrifice of missionaries, they are a peaceful Christ-centered society. So not only were some people changed, a whole society was changed. You can't change people without changing society to some extent.

I'm sorry, but sometimes this "our call is not to change society" talk sounds like an excuse for being impotent.

I agree.

We are called to go into all the world and preach the gospel. That will change a society. They lived a Christ expressing life. They were the salt in that environment.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

I agree.

We are called to go into all the world and preach the gospel. That will change a society. They lived a Christ expressing life. They were the salt in that environment.

Drake

I've wondered if "the third part of the earth" that gets judged in Revelation represents those that simply will not allow the effect of the Church/God's people to influence them to submit to God. Then there is "a third of the angels" which went with Satan.

I think we sometimes assume that God only wins over a minority of the people, that Satan gets most of them. But, really, think about it: Do you really think God would stand for that? Would he let his enemy get most of the humans, when Satan only got a third of the angels?

So maybe, through the influence of the Church, at least two-thirds, roughly, eventually align themselves with God. And the cursed one-third are left to the judgment they earned. But God get most of the spoils. How could he let it be any other way?

Such a thought should embolden us with hope for those who don't know the Lord yet.