Women's Role

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How do you reconcile this with Paul's word in Titus?

3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Once again, I don't dispute Paul's word that elders need to be "husbands of one wife" not Male, or Men. A single man is not eligible to be an elder, nor is a divorced man, a remarried man, etc. If we are going to be "absolute" for the word, and get rid of the hypocrisy, then do it. Stop making excuses for your own practice while condemning everyone else. This rule by Paul was not about condemning others (including himself) but rather about setting forth a good example to the flock, even as the Apostles state clearly and plainly.

The reality is you can have a ministry even if you are divorced, remarried, single, or (God forbid) a sister. What you can't be if you are any of those is "the husband of one wife". Elders were set forth as an example of the flock. You don't have to be an elder to teach or have a ministry. However, the elders that were able to teach as well were "worthy of double honor".

2nd, if you are the "husband of one wife" when you are selected to be an elder then they are obviously selecting you and your wife. Based on Titus the wife needs to teach the sisters.

Why is this so hard for you to understand and acknowledge?

I think Calvin is not restricting women teaching women or children.

The topic of the matter is women teaching men in the public assembly.

The big issue I see for you and others is that you fail to admit any restrictions on women whatsoever, despite these restrictions being believed in Christianity for hundreds of years and also followed by the reformers.

So why don't I turn this around and ask, what do you think women can women do and what can't they do?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think Calvin is not restricting women teaching women or children.

The topic of the matter is women teaching men in the public assembly.

The big issue I see for you and others is that you fail to admit any restrictions on women whatsoever, despite these restrictions being believed in Christianity for hundreds of years and also followed by the reformers.

So why don't I turn this around and ask, what do you think women can women do and what can't they do?

Really, how do I fail to admit any restrictions? I admit every single restriction that Paul has given.

If you are referring to 1Tim 2, then you can't ignore the other verses of Paul in the books to Timothy and Titus. Nor should you ignore Paul's word in 1Corinthians.

In Post # 143 I explain 1Tim 2 in a way that does not contradict everything else Paul taught. However, if you read it as a blanket prohibition on women teaching then you are contradicting many other verses by Paul and others. That is a fatally flawed approach.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really, how do I fail to admit any restrictions? I admit every single restriction that Paul has given.

If you are referring to 1Tim 2, then you can't ignore the other verses of Paul in the books to Timothy and Titus. Nor should you ignore Paul's word in 1Corinthians.

In Post # 143 I explain 1Tim 2 in a way that does not contradict everything else Paul taught. However, if you read it as a blanket prohibition on women teaching then you are contradicting many other verses by Paul and others. That is a fatally flawed approach.

I have never put forward a blanket prohibition of women teaching.

My OP was in response to someone who had a question about women in leadership positions, i.e. in the "circle of elders":

They asked:

I'll just ask you one thing: Who do you see, in the leadership circle of LC, is a woman?


I'm genuinely curious if you know any sister that is in leadership position because of and only because of her spirituality.

It is about women teaching doctrine to men without the covering of the brothers in the assembly. I presumed that this was of her own accord and not by virtue of being the wife of an elder.

Women in leadership positions and particularly unmarried women without the covering of her husband, has been a universally accepted prohibition in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant/Reform churches for centuries.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have never put forward a blanket prohibition of women teaching.

My OP was in response to someone who had a question about women in leadership positions, i.e. in the "circle of elders":

They asked:

I'll just ask you one thing: Who do you see, in the leadership circle of LC, is a woman?


I'm genuinely curious if you know any sister that is in leadership position because of and only because of her spirituality.

It is about women teaching doctrine to men without the covering of the brothers in the assembly. I presumed that this was of her own accord and not by virtue of being the wife of an elder.

Women in leadership positions and particularly unmarried women without the covering of her husband, has been a universally accepted prohibition in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant/Reform churches for centuries.

How can women not be "in the circle of elders". Every single elder is to be "the husband of one wife" hence every single elder has a wife. How are these women not in the circle? Genesis 5 -- "male and female created He them and called their name Adam".

Yes, I knew many women in leadership positions in the LC, they were the wives of the elders. The elders will tell you and told you in their messages that 90% of the decisions regarding the church were influenced by the sisters. Their job was to merely say ok.

When I was in Taipei in the FTTT the office at Hall 3 for the training was run with an Iron fist by a sister, a wife of one of the leading elders.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How can women not be "in the circle of elders". Every single elder is to be "the husband of one wife" hence every single elder has a wife. How are these women not in the circle? Genesis 5 -- "male and female created He them and called their name Adam".

Yes, I knew many women in leadership positions in the LC, they were the wives of the elders. The elders will tell you and told you in their messages that 90% of the decisions regarding the church were influenced by the sisters. Their job was to merely say ok.

When I was in Taipei in the FTTT the office at Hall 3 for the training was run with an Iron fist by a sister, a wife of one of the leading elders.

I don't really disagree with you, but might lower the 90% a little (really depends on the elder, and their wife). I said something along these lines in my earlier posts, such as #4. But the wives leading the church under the covering of their husbands is not deemed sufficient for many on this forum it would seem. It did not seem so for the person QOSTA raising the issues, who wanted to know if any women got to a leadership "position" on the basis of their own spirituality (not her husband's, presumably).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't really disagree with you, but might lower the 90% a little (really depends on the elder, and their wife). I said something along these lines in my earlier posts, such as #4. But the wives leading the church under the covering of their husbands is not deemed sufficient for many on this forum it would seem. It did not seem so for the person QOSTA raising the issues, who wanted to know if any women got to a leadership "position" on the basis of their own spirituality (not her husband's, presumably).

That is why IMO Paul says what he does. 2/3 of the church is women, if you allow women to take leadership positions without men you marginalize men to the point that the church becomes 90% women with a few passive men who don't care. I have seen this played out in various churches with female leaders.

Also this does nothing to set a positive example for families.

As for the question about "did any women get a leadership position based on their own spirituality (not her husband's)" this I feel is the error. How exactly do we know what the woman's spirituality is? If her family is a mess, her husband is a mess, her children are a mess, but she is "spiritual"? You can have a ministry without being an elder. You can publish books, teach, evangelize, etc. Go for it. No one needs to "give you" a leadership position. But if you are truly "spiritual", taking care of widows and orphans, teaching the younger sisters, leading by example then who cares if someone "gives you" a leadership position.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

. . wives leading the church under the covering of their husbands is not deemed sufficient for many on this forum it would seem..

Of course there would be difference of opinion [interpretation] and even practice. I've met with believers where the women wouldn't even say, "Amen" after the men spoke because Paul said that they should be silent in church. If they had anything to say, they could say it to their husband at home. Paul wrote it, it's in the canon of scripture, case closed.

On the other hand, I've met with groups where the women could stand at the lectern and give a message on Sunday morning. Times have changed, societal roles have evolved, and to some extent the church meetings reflect this.

And I never felt led to argue with members of either group. Let each one(s) be led of the Lord as they see fit. We don't receive each other to argue or pass judgments. What I object to is the two-faced hypocrisy of saying one thing, and expecting universal conformity, and yet in one's own practice so blatantly disregarding it. Evoking Dora Yu or Peace Wang, as if their ministries could exist for five minutes with you.

Or saying, "Women can't teach in the church", and then waving citations of Penn-Lewis and McDonald et al as if they were independent arbiters of revealed truth; are you really that desperate for the veneer of credibility for your teachings? And is your audience truly that dull, unperceptive, and/or stupefied? Or, cowed and intimidated? It's hard to fathom that in the year 2017 such "ministry" could have much traction with the public.

But, I was there, once. Amen, Lord, amen; even so, come Lord Jesus.

[Drake]

Aron>"Yes, the distinction is clear. Then why does LSM cite womens' teachings as if they had authority?"

But, is it? You say it is but then you say things as if it were not.

Aron, please clarify this. Do you agree or not agree with Paul's charge in I Timothy 2:12? Is it applicable today or was it for another place and time, outdated?

If you agree with it then how is it to be practiced? If you don't agree with it then why not and on what basis do you disregard it?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So why don't I turn this around and ask, what do you think women can women do and what can't they do?

That is a great question, worthy of its own thread, and perhaps not suitable for this forum (alt views perhaps) since we will be leaving Witness Lee's little frog pond.

What do I think Women can do?

Let me change this question to "What do you think the New Testament says Women can do?"

I think Jesus word about moving mountains by faith applies equally to women and men.

I think Paul's word charging the aged women to teach the younger women how to have a good marriage is not some superficial nursery school teaching but a critical and essential ministry for the church.

I think that women have very clearly been given the authority to teach the women, who represent 2/3 of the church and are therefore a very, very significant group in the church.

I think that women (and men) need to have their head covered when they teach. A woman should wear a head covering as a good example to the other sister's, whereas a man shouldn't wear a head covering but all the same needs to practice having his head covered. For example, what I think is insignificant, what the Apostle's taught is significant. That is the reality of head covering.

I think Paul's word in 1Tim 2 is about dealing with the local authority, and talking about women "being in quietness" refers to not getting all agitated and provoking an outcry. In this context, when the church deals with the local government, the newspaper, the press or any other public discourse, in that situation only the elders should speak and everyone else does not have the right to say anything other than point to the elders to speak.

I think that Paul's word clearly states that when you choose "an elder" you are choosing a couple -- a man and a wife, and that has been ignored and overlooked by too many. I see this similar to Genesis 5 -- and He called their name Adam. Therefore it is either incredibly ignorant or else willfully blind to say that an elder is a brother. An elder is "the husband of one wife", hence the term elder includes two people, a husband and wife.

What does the NT teach that women can't do?

They can't do anything of themselves. Apart from Jesus they can do nothing.

If they want to move mountains and have a prevailing ministry they need to be joined to Jesus.

For example, Jesus gave an example of powerful, prevailing prayer -- and the person he used to illustrate this power was a widow. Her head was properly covered, she didn't step outside the lines, but even unrighteous judges had to bow before her prevailing prayer. In my experience just the threat of this is enough to cause fire to fall from the heavens.

Let me share a little experience I had. I worked with my church in a ministry for the persecuted Christians around the world. We chose those in Sudan, we had a picture of a child who was killed, we used a small child's coffin and we had a rally across the street from the UN when they opened their session in the beginning of September. We filled the park. One man that came was involved in a ministry in Sudan (they made a movie about him, you might have seen the movie). The rally made international news and a number of ambassadors said that this was when they first took the issue in Sudan seriously. Our message was if you don't care about your brother when you can do something, no one will care about you when it comes here.

The following year we planned to repeat this rally, only this time we were going to have the front row of our march to be aged women. Each woman would carry the picture of some atrocity taking place. If they couldn't walk that far all the better, we would put them in wheel chairs being pushed by young men. The rally was planned for September 13th, but it was cancelled after the attack on September 11th.

How about you, do you agree? Disagree? Please respond to each point specifically. Thanks.