Womens' Role in the Church

[samwise]

I don't think it is the bible that is morally flawed it is the people who try to apply it.  People are flawed. I'm not prepared to say the bible is.

[Ken Fuller]

Vines expository:

Deceit:  (akin to apatao -- to cheat, deceive, beguile)
That which gives a false impression whether by appearance, statement or influence.

Beguile:  Used in context:  the influence of sin, of self-deception, of evil men who cause divisions, of deceitful teachers

Websters New Collegiate Dictionary:

Beguile:  1)  to lead by deception  2)  Hoodwink, cheat, to deprive by guile
   3) to while away, esp by some agreeable occupation  4)  to please or persuade by the use of wiles

guile:  deceitful cunning

Deceive:  To be false to; to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
syn: mislead, delude, beguile

Men, we WERE deceived (watch em squirm .....)

[Ken Fuller]

We were "intimidated" into giving??

No, "Malone", we were "deceived" as to where the money was going.

[wmathews]

My response to Nate’s post and quote from Cable:

“You are mistaken, not understanding the scriptures, or the power of God.” Mt 22:29
The word mistaken is Greek  ‘planao’, which means to drift, go astray. God describes our unstable nature ‘as sheep who have gone astray’. The previous verse applies to the misapplied pop culture interpretation that the Bible and its followers are somehow responsible for the wicked perpetuation of human rights sins such as slavery. This is no more true than saying because Jesus references divorce, he approves or condones it, see Mt 19. The Bible did not condone either slavery or divorce, but it regulated it. In the Hebrew nation, The guidelines were not to enslave a Hebrew, but to set him free in the seventh year, Ex. 21:2. It is true that the heathen nations around Israel were not released in the seventh year (all of these nations practiced not only slavery but also human sacrifice and temple prostitution), yet in the jubilee year (every fifty years) all slaves were set free, see Lev. 25:10-17. The same passage forbids oppression and abuse of slaves, Hebrew and otherwise.



“God approves of slavery. In Exodus 21:1-6 he sets forth the guidelines for the buying, selling and treatment of slaves. He says that if a male slave marries, his wife and children shall remain with the master when the slave departs because technically speaking they belong to the master. Now if the slave is imprudent enough to protests because he loves his wife and children God tells the master to, "Take an awl and thrust it through his earlobe unto the door." This is all repeated in Deut. 15:17 accept here it says, "Do likewise to your maid slaves." In Exodus 21:7-9 God even instructs men how they are to go about selling their daughters into slavery.”

Response: The provision in Ex. 21 is the law of the bondservant. IF a servant came to the master with a wife and children, he was allowed and commanded to leave with his wife and children. That is not pointed out in the above statement. Be careful of the verb ‘approves’.



“What did Jesus have to say about slavery? Well, in the cherished Sermon of the Mount, allegedly given by him and recognized as a prescription for Christian living, the institution of slavery, so prevalent at the time, is never mentioned. However, in Matthew 8 Jesus heals the Roman centurion's slave while (v10) praising the centurion for his exemplary faithfulness. Why didn't Jesus seize this opportunity to condemn slavery and forbid it? But the most astounding pro-slavery statement in the Bible is made by Jesus himself in Matthew 10:24-25. Here he not only reminds slaves that they are never above their master, he actually recommends that they strive to be like him. Throughout the gospels Jesus ignores countless opportunities to condemn slavery. Doesn't this amount to an endorsement of that infamous institution?”

Response: Jesus also had ‘countless opportunities’ to condemn Caesar and the human rights abuses of the Roman Empire, but He was strangely silent, except to direct: ‘Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s…’ I do not think it was because He held Caesar or the Roman lifestyle as a moral paragon.  Paul wrote a letter about a runaway slave called Onesiphorus. His advice was for Philemon to receive him’ not now as a slave, but as a brother beloved’. Such transformed relationships became more common as many of the slave class received the Gospel, the fabric of the Roman empire was changed from the bottom up, as you can read in Gibbon’s history and others. In the New testament church, the teaching was There is no longer Greek nor Jew, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all. This was (and is) the radical message that transformed social structures, not bloody revolutions or secular politicians.  Now the natural man is always quick to blame God for His own faults and evil. The Bible is no more responsible for ‘promoting’ slavery than it is for promoting divorce, nor are societies influenced by Christianity more likely than others to promote slavery.
   Who can read of the consciousness raising messages of Wesley, Wilberforce, and Dr. Livingston, and not deny that it was their moral suasion, not secular society, which was economically profiting from slavery, that propelled the movement of laws and institutions finally condemning slavery ? The places in the world where the pox of slavery persists are not Christian regions, but Muslim strongholds such as Sudan and Mauritania.
   I have lived and labored in Africa, doing medical work and preaching, and while ‘the curse of Ham’ has been used to justify all sorts of sinful oppression which I heartily condemn, there is no denying the reality of a continent stricken by poverty, AIDS, and unparalleled burden of disease.  Is the curse of Ham operational in this?  On the other hand, speaking of dispensations, I know of no other continent which is receiving the Gospel at a more vigorous rate than Africa today.  Perhaps in the coming dispensation, Ham shall teach his brethren of the true values of the kingdom of Christ, of course not apart from the role that Jacob will fulfil in that day Zech. 14:16-20.
   In conclusion, I do not credit secular society for the abolition of slavery, and I think that can be refuted by history alone. I do hold responsible many who have used the scriptures for their own sinful gain, to justify systematic sin in countless ways, yet the scriptures stand ‘towering over the wrecks of time’. Be careful in the puny rantings of people like Voltaire, whose modern ‘enlightenment’ impugns the scripture only because his blinded understanding cannot perceive its truth Mt. 13:15;  your house just may be turned over to the International Bible Society.

Wayne Mathews

[Nate Dogg]

Dad,

  I'm sorry if I didnt make it more clear that I disagreed with many of the man's points. I also agree that the Bible is and has been a liberating force. But I also recognize that Christianity has been used to both perpetuate AND abolish slavery. the story of Onesiphorus is a great example of this tension in the bible.
 The history of Christianity in Africa is a complex and troubled one, but historically, missionaries to Africa (at least in colonial times) acted as footholds for European plundering of the continent. I would be glad to give you extensive further reading on the subject which backs my point up.
Anyway, the subject which I was referencing was the issue of interpreting the Bible literally. If slavery is in fact a TOTAL wrong as I believe it is, then it calls for a moral response of TOTAL condemnation. this the bible does not give.
 
If we cannot turn to the bible for a TOTAL condemnation of one of the most wicked and repugnant sins...then how can we turn to it for a fairly minor matter such as the submission of women.
 
We should not as the author did, throw out the baby with the bathwater. But we should also not pretend that our moral code comes directly and only from the bible, independent of cultural contexts.

On another note, I really appreciate this response and exchange. This is the kind of deep, insightful, reasoned, and hopefully sincere debates that make this web site and BB such a valuable resource.

                                       peace and struggle,
                                                    Nate

[Heide]

Boys,

I find it interesting that yet again a woman's role is defined by men.

It was Betty's fault what happened in the assembly?? Are you insane? Women can't lead or teach? Are we talking the assembly or just in general. The old testament has wonderful examples of women. Of course none of these examples relate to Betty because she was doing everything out of the flesh and sin. Her motives were derived out of pride and power. I never saw Betty get up on Sunday morning and teach. She was more subtle than that. Let's have a sister's meeting or meet with the brothers. Everything she did was subtle and behind the curtain per se. Because of her example does not mean now that women become even more submissive.

We are co-heirs! We can preach, teach, prophesy and shepherd. And what better way to teach than to care and be an example.

Men and women think differently, to say not to listen to your wife or a woman is stupidity. And the reverse is true as well.

If I help you navigate thru difficult waters am I leading you? I f I take your hand and help you over the rocks am I leading you? If I turn you away from the destruction where you were headed, am I leading you? You betcha!

I am defiant and I don't want a man telling me what my role as a woman is. ( Unless we are talking God or Christ)  If I wanted that I would run back to the assembly where I could be crushed. I want to hear from the women. How women relate the bible to their lives.

What is up with this slavery issue and women?

To the man who is going to say, "Well, women were decieved first so therefore you must listen to me, crud.." Don't!

[Luke Robinson]

I don't understand it and all, and I know that I am a man..but I just think that it is a responsibility issue.  For some reason, in some wierd way, I think that God has planned it from the fall of man, that more responsibility should be laid on the man.  Even though he was not the one that first ate of the tree.  In a way, God punished him more.  Selah!  

But I totally agree with women having something to say.  That would be pure stupidity to think otherwise.  As someone said, you women are coheirs of the kingdom!  

I don't know all the ins and outs of women speaking in the church and what not.  But women are also given gifts and God will lead them as to how to use them.  God Bless.

A Brother in Christ,

Luke Robinson

[4Him]

Boys,
I find it interesting that yet again a woman's role is defined by men.

No, it like a man's role is defined by the Word of God. Michelle had a pretty good post in this thread regarding that.

It was Betty's fault what happened in the assembly?? Are you insane? Women can't lead or teach? Are we talking the assembly or just in general. The old testament has wonderful examples of women. Of course none of these examples relate to Betty because she was doing everything out of the flesh and sin. Her motives were derived out of pride and power. I never saw Betty get up on Sunday morning and teach. She was more subtle than that. Let's have a sister's meeting or meet with the brothers. Everything she did was subtle and behind the curtain per se. Because of her example does not mean now that women become even more submissive.

No one (specifically Brent) said it was entirely or even primarily Betty's fault what happened, but that she did conduct herself unscripturally in de facto teaching and holding an authoritarian place in the Assemblies.  It is evident that she did have a significant role in the deception and abuse.  You are very correct that she was "subtle", but that's how she was able to do the end-around and teach and take authority.

We are co-heirs! We can preach, teach, prophesy and shepherd. And what better way to teach than to care and be an example.
Men and women think differently, to say not to listen to your wife or a woman is stupidity. And the reverse is true as well.
If I help you navigate thru difficult waters am I leading you? I f I take your hand and help you over the rocks am I leading you? If I turn you away from the destruction where you were headed, am I leading you? You betcha!

Amen on all counts, but it all must be in accord with Scripture.  

I am defiant and I don't want a man telling me what my role as a woman is. ( Unless we are talking God or Christ)  If I wanted that I would run back to the assembly where I could be crushed. I want to hear from the women. How women relate the bible to their lives.

Again, as long as your "defiance" is against the excesses of a man's false authority, Amen!  No you don't need "a man" (or a woman for that matter) to tell you (1 John 2:27 - But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.) I am learning (since leaving the assembly) that we can read and receive the Word and learn from it without having to "spiritualize" it for meaning.  What's your role as a woman? The Holy Spirit by God's Word will tell you, not me.

What is up with this slavery issue and women?

Good question.  I don't see a connection. Maybe it's a linkage of women's liberation to the abolition of slavery.  I think slavery is a big issue with Nate Matthews.  It is an interesting topic tho'.

[vernecarty]

Brent makes a great point and I am in general agreement with his position. Have you noticed that the only occasions in which contentious debate arises regarding the role of women (especially in the church), is when the conduct and integrity of the men is called into question? Many intelligent, thoughtful God-fearing women are asking the legitimate question- "Where are the men?!". This point in and of itself provides much food for thought for those of us who believe that scripture teaches that in the chuch we (so-called!) men ought to lead.
As Brent pointed out, the thing that most often brings me the closest to loosing my Christian composure is the sad spectacle of all those so-called leading brothers and elders, reveling like pompous peacocks in their Geftakys-given authority and joyfully lording it over the flock...yet none of them having the "cojones" to stop this rampaging wolf and his harpy of a wife from engaging in the unspeakable slaughter for which they are responsible. Do I want any of my two precious daughters subject to such despicable eunuchs as these??
 NO WAY!!!!
Verne

[M2]

Here's one for ya ... I'll admit I'm VERY bothered as I hear women are unable to contribute to the x-assembly "evaluation" discussions.  That immediately triggered the RED "Business as Usual" sirens.

My thoughts?  Well, first this doesn't seem like a "when the whole church be gathered together" type function.  Actually, it doesn't seem like a church function at all, since you're trying to decide if this IS a God-raised gathering.

Okay -- and here's the kicker -- what the the CLEAR reason Paul stated for women to keep silent??  Because it was Woman who was deceived in the garden and not Man.

GUESS WHAT MEN  WE'VE ALL BEEN DECEIVED THIS TIME!!  And we can't, as Adam tried (and as David and Betty try), blame it on our wives!!  

"But Lord, it's the woman you gave me ...."  ... IT AIN'T GONNA WORK THIS TIME!!!!

Maybe you should be listening to the concerns of EVERYONE!!!!!!

I say Amen to this post. This is what I have experienced in Ottawa, and the deception keeps feeding itself in those closed brother's meetings.
Marcia

[M2]

Let me recommend a tape by Stuart Brisco,

on Ephesians 5.

Shouldn't be too hard to find.  I know they have it on the Calvary Chapel webpage.

Brent

Charles Price is an excellent preacher; I've watched him for the last few Sundays (on TV). He mentioned that Stuart Briscoe is his friend. Price recently finished a series of messages on Romans and just last Sunday preached on Rom 16 where he touched on the women and their roles as mentioned in the chapter. check out livingtruth.ca

Lord bless,
Marcia

[James]

I say Amen to this post. This is what I have experienced in Ottawa, and the deception keeps feeding itself in those closed brother's meetings.
Marcia

Marcia, try going to one of those mega churches and see if they will let you into their board meetings.

[psalm51]

I say Amen to this post. This is what I have experienced in Ottawa, and the deception keeps feeding itself in those closed brother's meetings.
Marcia

Marcia, try going to one of those mega churches and see if they will let you into their board meetings.

That's like comparing oranges with apples. The board meetings at the church I attend are open to anyone and they value the input of the brothers and sisters in fellowship there. This is as it should be.  Marcia and the other women were involved with that small gathering in Ottawa for a long time.  They were affected by what has happened. They have every right to hear what is discussed and have input. It reminds me that Betty's influence is alive and well in these places: making women feel like their only contribution is to get married and have children.

[James]

George and Betty aside, did all the assemblies refuse the contribution of the Lord's people?

[Arthur]

George and Betty aside, did all the assemblies refuse the contribution of the Lord's people?

If it was criticism of the leadership, George and/or the ministry then yes, it was refused.

What's more, not only was it refused, but those who gave criticism were treated with the utmost contempt--even to the point of being excommunicated by the leaders for speaking the truth about the problems in the assembly.  Their names were slandered by the leaders to the rest of the assembly.  The leaders created stories about why they left and/or were excommunicated, saying that they had "fallen into sin", "left the Lord", "become worldly", "committed adultery", "are coveteous", etc. -- none of which were true.  
James, isn't that an indication of great wickedness?

Questions are good, but what is your motivation?  Are you dismayed that the assemblies disbanded?  

Arthur