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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly, no matter what she says,
even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little
consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman. –Origen (d. 258): Fragments on First Corinthians, 74

Origen is a study into Christian extremes. Though much good was done (against heresy) he introduced new heresy, like reincarnation and universal reconcilation, that is, each of us pre-existed in another form before our conception and all people including the devil will be saved. Far too New Age for me. Got any better sources to support your chauvinist views?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Got any better sources

What about Jesus? What did he teach on women? Pretty much nothing from what I can see. They got treated same as everyone else. They got healed, forgiven, fed and admonished. They are sinners who need redemption, and who evidently were also disciples.

To me that's the first salient point. They had access to Jesus. Not through their husbands, but directly. In this Jesus seems to have been quite "progressive", as we'd put it today. He was an observant Jew, and dutifully regarded gentiles as 'dogs', but he never told anyone to 'know their place'; in fact it seems people repeatedly by-passed social strictures and he didn't care much. So the current fundamentalist reactionaries seem to miss the point of his ministry.

Now, behavior is a different matter. He wasn't permissive. But that's pretty clear. I don't think we need to confuse the issues.

Secondly, the poor, the despised, the weak, the widows, the sick; they got the grace. So if women are upset with their treatment and we say, "Too bad for you to be born female. Live with it", we miss the point of his ministry. Women had the short stick all along. Unless we see a few verses from Jesus, we shouldn't wave them away with a few verses of Paul.

Lastly, I find the fundamentalist "It's in the Bible" pose to be full of hypocrisy. I already have written repeatedly on the genesis of the movement. Women assumed leadership roles in activity and doctrine. Who (re)discovered the 'three parts of man' in LC folklore? A woman. Who discovered the secret rapture? A woman. See Darby and the genesis of this idea. He was chief promulgator but he didn't originate it. Some woman got it in a feverish dream on her sick-bed.

I knew of a LC couple where the woman's a professional, earns hundreds of thousands. Her husband stays home and raises the kids. They go to meetings, I was there with them for several years. No one, not once intimated Paul's dictum that she stay home and "be saved through child-bearing" or child-rearing. Why not? Because that 'truth' isn't expedient for the coffers. They were paying customers.

Selective application abounds.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Origen is a study into Christian extremes. Though much good was done (against heresy) he introduced new heresy, like reincarnation and universal reconcilation, that is, each of us pre-existed in another form before our conception and all people including the devil will be saved. Far too New Age for me. Got any better sources to support your chauvinist views?

No fault of his own. Because of faulty bible translations, of course.

Who do you want?

I got Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Tertullian...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No fault of his own. Because of faulty bible translations, of course.

Who do you want?

I got Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Tertullian...

I've had enough bad Bible commentary for one lifetime.

I'll stick to scriptures.

But ... Thanks anyway.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No fault of his own. Because of faulty bible translations, of course.

Who do you want?

I got Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Tertullian...

I want Jesus. Sorry.

What did Jesus teach on the place of women? And if nothing, why not? Not important? Left the mopping-up duties to Paul?

Again, my sense is that Paul addressed the tumult in the church by pointing to conventions and norms of social behavior. Why should the newly freed Christians become libertines, or up-end social convention? Why did Paul have to write, "Those who stole, steal no more"? Or point out, drunken-ness, or fornication, and reprove such behaviours? Because he was dealing with it: it was coming into the assembly. But that wasn't ever the core of the Christian message. So don't base your "normal church life" on ancient social convention.

Yet 2,000 years later this word is used as leverage to keep others in subjection. Like OBW said, the SBC and/or others could play the same game: Ham's race were supposed to be slaves, or were supposed to be in lesser position. It's in the Bible; it's God's ordination - don't rebel against the divine arrangement.

So Tertullian doesn't cut it, unless you can show me Tertullian sourcing Jesus and not Paul. And did he or Augustine ever explain why Jesus didn't teach on women's place in the social order, church or otherwise? Or did Augustine just quote Paul? If you can't trace your teachings back to Jesus then you're a tape recorder, playing Paul and Tertullian and Augustine, trying to re-create by-gone social conventions, because they once were effective. Show us Jesus teaching this, or at least strongly inferring it. Think, don't just play ministry tapes.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Jane Anderson in A Woman of Chayil

I did not write the book, A Woman of Chayil, seeking some kind of restitution for all that women have suffered. Nor did I write it with the hope of extracting some kind of admission and repentance from men who have hurt women.

I wrote it to help both men and women alike turn their eyes upon Jesus and see Him as He really is: See Him on the cross, dying to save us and set us free from sin and death; see Him resurrected in the garden, testifying that God's love for us is stronger than death; see Him interceding for us on the throne, praying that God's will be done in our lives; see Him patiently coming to us by His Spirit, again and again, seeking to draw us back to Himself.

In eternity's brilliant light - where all things will be finished, where everything will be manifest and seen as it really is, where there will be no darkness at all - we will rejoice forever in Him! If I sound a bit too joyful this side of that glorious day, how can I be otherwise? Faithful is He who began a good work in us that He will surely finish!

I think "The Thread Of Gold" should be "required reading" for anyone serious about discussing the matters covered in A Woman Chayil. Why? Because without the background of Jane's intensely personal experience, the fruit of which is so vividly described in the subtitle of TToG: "God's Purpose, the Cross, and Me", it may be hard for people, especially men, to fully grasp and appreciate what our sister is bringing forth in A Woman of Chayil.

For the brothers having a hard time with some of the issues Jane is addressing in this book, I have presented the above quote for your consideration. Many of the issues Jane addresses are actually a continuation of her experience with "God's purpose, the cross and me". In the Local Church we were taught that God's purpose was to "build the church", a seemingly noble and biblical concept. The problem was that many of Witness Lee's teachings led us to believe that the church, or I should say, the building of the church, was something different and/or apart from what he purposes for our individual lives as flesh and blood creatures created in His image and likeness.

Surely "the good work" that God has began in us is not simply to build some race of super Christians, or to gather an association of churches full of people that "understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and have all faith, so as to remove mountains" (1Cor13:2), but lack the most basic respect and compassion for our fellow creatures created by the very same God, and made up of the very same flesh and blood. Brothers, how much more for those to whom we are "co-heirs of the grace of life"?(1Pet3:7)
-

****************************BEEEEEEEEEEEEEP - - - THIS IS A TEST - THIS WAS A TEST OF THE EMERGENCY SYSTEM TO TUG AT THE HEARTSTRINGS OF ANY BROTHER WHO HAS A HEART OF FLESH. THIS WAS ONLY A TEST - YOU CAN NOW RETURN TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED ROUTINE OF MISUNDERSTANDING ON PURPOSE, THINKING ANY SISTER THAT HAS SOMETHING FROM GOD AND HIS WORD IS OUT OF PLACE, AND JUST BEING GENERALLY BULL-HEADED AND HOSTILE TO OUR FELLOW HEIRS OF THE GRACE OF LIFE. - - - BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP - - - -THIS WAS ONLY A TEST*************************************

-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I want Jesus. Sorry.

What did Jesus teach on the place of women? And if nothing, why not? Not important? Left the mopping-up duties to Paul?

Again, my sense is that Paul addressed the tumult in the church by pointing to conventions and norms of social behavior. Why should the newly freed Christians become libertines, or up-end social convention? Why did Paul have to write, "Those who stole, steal no more"? Or point out, drunken-ness, or fornication, and reprove such behaviours? Because he was dealing with it: it was coming into the assembly. But that wasn't ever the core of the Christian message. So don't base your "normal church life" on ancient social convention.

Yet 2,000 years later this word is used as leverage to keep others in subjection. Like OBW said, the SBC and/or others could play the same game: Ham's race were supposed to be slaves, or were supposed to be in lesser position. It's in the Bible; it's God's ordination - don't rebel against the divine arrangement.

So Tertullian doesn't cut it, unless you can show me Tertullian sourcing Jesus and not Paul. And did he or Augustine ever explain why Jesus didn't teach on women's place in the social order, church or otherwise? Or did Augustine just quote Paul? If you can't trace your teachings back to Jesus then you're a tape recorder, playing Paul and Tertullian and Augustine, trying to re-create by-gone social conventions, because they once were effective. Show us Jesus teaching this, or at least strongly inferring it. Think, don't just play ministry tapes.

If you think that Jesus was for gender equality then you would be mistaken. There is nothing in scripture or in early church writings to support that. I could pretend to be a catholic or orthodox at the moment and also highlight that early church fathers who were disciples of the disciples themselves did not share much of a different view to the ones I have already quoted.

Jesus's lack of teaching on the matter more or less proves that he upheld the status quo at the time. He addressed issues of hypocrisy, adultery, money, prostitution, etc ,but never once said that women are now equal to men.

Consider the following examples of how Jesus was not for gender equality:

Jesus only hired males for his 12 disciples, never once giving a woman the chance to rule over the 12 tribes of Israel or sit at his right or left hand side in the kingdom.

Scripture shows that women served Jesus and the disciples while they reclined at tables. The male/female roles are clear - women subservient to men.

He asked a woman to get him a drink in John 4:7. He did not bother to get it himself, he expected to be waited upon by the woman, who had to lift a heavy bucket of water from the well I would imagine. Showing the role of women in servitude and submission to men.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus's lack of teaching on the matter more or less proves that he upheld the status quo at the time..

Then society changes, and gives equal rights to women, and the church suddenly doesn't uphold the status quo? Why? Because the church has been usurped and given institutional fetters by those wanting temporal power. It's not about the status quo but about the opportunity to hide one's lack of self-control by dominating others. I've seen women fall prey to this as well, though they're not given as much opportunity as men. It's an equal-opportunity destroyer; that's the usurping and defiant Jezebel spirit.

The Little Flock came into existence heavily indebted to leadership by women. Then their services were discarded when no longer expedient. Like Watchman Nee did with Leland Wang, and Witness Lee with John Ingalls and Max Rappaport. The former colleagues had served their purpose and then were let go. The constant theme throughout is the acquisition and maintenance of temporal power.

I knew a couple in the LC - the woman was a successful professional, made lots of money. The husband stayed home and raised the children. Nobody quoted Tertullian or Paul to them. Why? Because times had changed, and the couple was putting money in LSM coffers. Ministry loyalty is the constant. Everything else, including scripture, is expedient.

Jesus didn't spend time on women's rights, or civil rights, or Herod and the Romans. He was about the Father's business, caring for actual people. He didn't have much truck with sanctimonious religious hypocrisy. I'm not saying that is what anyone is doiing here, but that we all have to guard ourselves. Don't just quote "Paul says" because you may notice that you ignore what Paul says elsewhere. For example, women in the LC no longer must cover themselves for the sake of the angels. Why not? Have the angels changed? Or have we? And should we? Paul's advice is optional?

And I'm not being a back door for "times have changed" permissiveness. "I'm okay, you're okay; God loves us all." Paul rightly argued against being lax against worldly and fleshly behaviours, as did Peter, Jude, and James. Freedom didn't mean freedom to sin. God is still holy.

[Evangelical]

This is not about the Recovery, Nee, or Lee, though it must be a convenient crutch for you to lean on to avoid the real heart of the matter. The discussion has moved past that. This is about whether our English bible translations are correct or not. That's the real issue here. And if they are incorrect, as Jane, Nell et al are implying, if it really is a "lemon tree" producing so many lemons, then it casts doubt on God's ability to preserve His Word and the integrity of those who are pillars in the protestant faith -Calvin, Luther etc. Then how many other matters are incorrect translations?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is not about the Recovery, Nee, or Lee, though it must be a convenient crutch for you to lean on to avoid the real heart of the matter. The discussion has moved past that. This is about whether our English bible translations are correct or not. That's the real issue here. And if they are incorrect, as Jane, Nell et al are implying, if it really is a "lemon tree" producing so many lemons, then it casts doubt on God's ability to preserve His Word and the integrity of those who are pillars in the protestant faith -Calvin, Luther etc. Then how many other matters are incorrect translations?

Evangelical,

You should consider the possibility that Jane's book IS God moving to preserve His Word. You should also consider that the "pillars" you speak so highly of, were they alive today, might have no problem with Jane's book and might even appreciate her efforts to insure the accuracy of the translations, and join her in her efforts.

You should consider that Calvin and Luther, et al, may care more for the accuracy of the translations of God's Word than for their own centuries old "commentaries." The integrity of these men, given their stature, would likely cause them to rejoice to see the recorded translation of God's Holy Word be reviewed by men and women Hebrew scholars, and corrected if/when appropriate.

Did you know, according to Katharine Bushnell, that when the Hebrew scribes would make a copy (in Hebrew) of the original transcripts, if they came across a word that was crossed out and rewritten (for whatever reason) since they couldn't backspace/correct, they would write the stricken word, cross it out, and write the corrected word, exactly as they found the original? They were diligent to be faithful to the original and not make an assumption on their own. I would imagine Calvin and Luther have this same desire to be faithful to God's word and accuracy is more important than ego...either theirs or yours.

Getting it right is important...more important than the possibility of male gender bias prevailing in misrepresenting God, God's Word and His Nature, the ministry of Paul, and most of all, subjugation of half of the Body of Christ.

You're applying your own prejudices to Calvin and Luther, et al, and assuming that they think the way you do. I doubt that. Taking another look is not such a bad thing, is it?

Nell

BTW, it's 8 verses. Eight. E*I*G*H*T. Not a whole tree full of lemons.