Headlines & Current Articles

Monday, December 10, 2012

Women In Ministry & Sexism Within The Christian Church Pt. 2


As a result of the original article on the subject entitled "Women In Ministry & Sexism Within The Christian Church" I was able to enter into a discussion/debate with Pastor Saiko Woods on a bolgtalk radio segment called His Word His Way. The entire segment is listed below for your review.

In part of the show, the host implored the use of  1 Tim 3, which many believe is the strongest argument in support of "men only" in church leadership within the corporate and organized Christian church.

Here is the scripture:

1 Timothy 3:1-71-This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2-A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3-Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4-One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5-(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6-Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7-Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

I have noted (darkened) all the references using male gender specific words. The host basically pointed out that statements such as those in bold above are the key to this argument, and provides, based on grammatical construction, solid evidence that women were excluded from leadership ministry. He also pointed out that the word "Bishop" primarily could mean elder, pastor, or overseer. Therefore,  his conclusion was that women certainly could not pastor or lead in any capacity and to do so was not only spiritual deceit, but also ultimately a sin.

Is This True & Does 1 Tim. 3:1-7 Make The Case For Male Only Leadership In Ministry & Within The Christian Church? 

Quite naturally, when one reads and if all one relies upon are how we use pronouns such as "he" and statements such as "husband of one wife" the case seems to have a punch solidifying the thought  that only MEN or individuals of the male gender are allowed in these type of positions. It sounds good, even appears to be true upon superficial review, but what we actually note from scripture may set the notion that woman are excluded from leadership ministry on it's head.


How Can That Be Possible?

Glad You asked...Well, it all centers around the word or the object of the subject pronoun. The word "Bishop" and the historical interpretation of that word. Let's look at a method of biblical interpretation that may provide a more full spectrum or range of understanding for our purposes and review:

Historical Scriptural Literalism

This is the house of cards that the male only argument is built upon. This is a common interpretive method. Basically, it states that "this is the way it has always been taught and done, therefore it is valid".  In other words the logic of this method is self validating.

As stated, this is one of several valid methodologies of biblical interpretation. Those who adhere to it, base their conclusions on what has "traditionally" (historically) been taught and accepted by the Christian church and many Christian teachers and evangelists, especially those of the reformation or enlightenment era.

Normally, those committed to this method assert, somewhat dogmatically, that we must implore a scriptural literalism to interpret the text and that literalism reveals what the scripture is saying or what it means. In other words, believe it because that's what it says. The question is, is that always true?

My Assessment

I agree in part with these conclusions, however, my contentions, which I believe are solid, are #1, many historical persons can teach a thing and be wrong about what they have historically taught or held by tradition. Jesus pointed this fact out to the Pharisees and the teachers of his day even claiming that there traditions had made the word of God on no effect or powerless. (Matthew 15:1-9) The whole reformation was also based on the premise that a certain line of "tradition" and doctrines as had been taught by the Catholic Church were wrong. So what is historically taught may be good, but this does not automatically lend to the thought that what is taught is conclusive or definitively the truth.

# 2, only God is flawless and 100% correct. Men are flawed and fallible, whether that be in numbers or individually. The words, interpretations and thoughts of "men" are no guarantee of the truth of God. Only those words that proceed from the mouth of God are words that we can live by or hang our very existence upon.

Deut. 8:3 ~ And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.


Interpretation is always subject to being flawed or fallibility. So it is (or at least should be) the word of God, not the historical interpretation of that word that is the valid or validating part of doctrine, dogma and what we accept or reject as Christians.   

#3, I believe that we should interpret literally until the context demands us to do otherwise, as opposed to invoking a literal interpretation regardless of context. This is vitally important. For example, the word of God says that the "eyes of the Lord are in every place" (Prov. 15:3) and another scripture says that God shall hide you under the "shadow of his wing" (Ps. 17:8). Now, if we interpret this "literally" are we to assume that God is a great bird like creature with a limitless number of eyes?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

To say that God has hands, wings, feet and eyes and such like are anthropomorphism by which God is described using human values in effort of to relay a comprehensible understanding. These descriptions are things that cause us to relate to what is being said as it pertains to the characteristics of God in relationship to his creation. (and that would be US)

So the cardinal rule of interpretation is CONTEXT. Not the literal word only as we will look toward now.

#4, Additionally, we should seek to find the context of how a particular word was used under a particular circumstance (situational setting) in order to draw proper and full meaning from what is being communicated. Therefore, back to my first statement,  we should only take things literally if the context of scripture calls for a literal interpretation. Then and only then can we hold that up so that the message can be best understood.

This can be called the critical, contextual, method biblical interpretation. But there is one thing in any method that we should do our best to avoid:


Using the contextual methodology, one seeks not only the literal word that was used, but seeks to understand and define the word and the teaching in the sense in which it was intended. The problem with any  method and methodology is what could be called literary syncretism. For the purpose of our study, I would pose that Literary Syncretism could be said to have occurred when two or more historical contexts are molded together to create a completely new historical context.

Since, in this case, we are looking at eras, or generally accepted practices religiously or otherwise, it is vitally important that syncretism doesn't occur in order to find the actual historical setting or the "sitz em laban"  in which the scripture was delivered. If this is done, interpreting scripture according to its proper context becomes virtually impossible. In other words, one could impose a certain context upon scripture that was developed at a later time or that didn't exist in the time in which scripture was penned. Doing this sort of thing only leads to confusion.

Another Issue:
Some Words Have Multiple Meanings And Can Only Be Discerned Based Upon Context.

This is important and something that happens all the time. In English we call them homonyms. Words that are spelled the same, look the same but mean different things. Even though Greek has words styled for specific usage, there are yet singular words that have multiple meanings. From a scriptural standpoint, one such example is the word "faith" (Gk: Pistis). In certain scriptures, the word "faith" refers to the belief that one has.(Heb. 11:1)  In other instances the same word "faith" refers to the lifestyle that one embarks upon.(1 Timothy 4:7) So within scripture one can believe and be saved by exercising "faith" (Rom. 10:8-9) and one can live a lifestyle for Christ and abide in the "faith"(Acts 14:22, Col. 1:23) In addition one can even fight and contend for the "faith" which was once delivered, (Jude 3) indicating that "faith" is also a set or a system of beliefs. Even though the same word is used under each circumstance, the clear distinction between what the word is referring to is only discovered when the method of contextual discovery is invoked or used.

So what does any of this have to do with the subject of the proverbial "price of tea in China"?

Back To The Issue

Glad you asked....Specifically, the problem is how does any of what I have said affect or interpretation of 1 Timothy 3?

Well quite simply put, the historical interpretation has made the assumption that only men are leaders,  pastors and bishops based on the historical patriarchal male dominated ANE (Ancient Near East) setting in which the scriptures were created. Historical interpretations have flowed based on those assumptions which are no longer normative or absolute within our modern cultural setting.

Secondly, there are a few things that can be said about the 1 Timothy 3 passage.   Here are a few observations when word literalism is applied.

I- In verse 1, the word "Bishop" ἐπισκοπή, ῆς, ἡ in the Greek is a FEMININE Noun? However in verse 2 it is a MALE noun.

Here's the definition of the the word Bishop in the 1st verse:
Original Word: ἐπισκοπή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: episkopé
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-is-kop-ay')

Here's the second:
Original Word: ἐπίσκοπος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: episkopos
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-is'-kop-os)

Here's some additional information: "1984 episkopḗ (a feminine noun, derived from 1909 /epí, "on, appropriately fitting," which intensifies 4648 /skopéō, "look intently") – properly, oversight that naturally goes on to provide the care and attention appropriate to the "personal visitation."

So, in essence, the "office" of Bishop is specified with a feminine noun whereas the person of the Bishop is a male noun. So some would say, that settles it, the "person" should be a male! However, that misses the point of the text. I will explain over the next two points:

II- First Timothy 3 is NOT seeking to distinguish gender roles, rather it is focusing on the character as the guiding principle for the one occupying the office. 

The key to understanding the whole dialogue IS NOT in the gender of the words used such as "He" and "husband of one wife", it is in the FUNCTION that the scripture communicates. The overseer or Bishop should have a stable and desirable lifestyle and comes in union with the church and people to serve them. Therefore, the noun used to describe the "office" is a feminine noun. Culturally, all of them that served in this capacity were men, but that is not a restriction found within the text as gender is not the guiding principle of any of the functions. 

The principle: "husband of one wife" ~ Is a woman a threat to the office by means of multiple marriage?
The principle: "ruleth his own house", "have his children in subjection": ~  Is the assumption that a woman cannot maintain an orderly house?

Other questions arise such as are women less subject to pride? Can a woman not manage business affairs? I mean we could go on. Quite naturally these things we know that woman can do, but still may question whether women are permitted to do these things within the context of the church simply because of their gender from birth. However, there is a problem if we outline things as tightly as is seen here. It is called "Selective Literalism" Here it is: 

III ~ Literal Acceptance Means That All Bishops Must Not Only Be Married, But Must Also Have Children, But The Question Is How Many?

My contention is that this scripture is not giving an object lesson on gender, family size or anything of the sort. It is giving a lesson on character. The "Bishop" elder leader or what have you, MUST be a person of trustworthy integrity and seasoned ability. The gender distinction is commensurate not only with language but also with culture as men were generally in leadership from Judaism's historical standpoint and from a ANE context. 

The lesson of scripture however, wasn't in affirmation of gender, it was in affirmation of character and integrity. To use this scripture to teach or affirm gender is a misuse and abuse of the scripture.

Broadening Our Understanding

It is my contention that male pronouns are incidental to the train of thought. Rather than continually saying "male and female" or "he and she" and outlining every instance or circumstance under both scenarios, the singular gender identity is used, just as we see in other passages where women are referred to but only the male gender is identified. 

Similar to someone coming into a room and saying "what's up guys" when women are present. That saying "what's up guys" doesn't mean that everyone in the room are male by gender or that only the males are being spoken to. Therefore, the "guys" in the saying "what's up guys?" is generic and incidental to language. 

Do We Find More Examples Of This In Scripture?     

Yes We Do. 

We find that same methodology in the Old Testament from the very beginning of man's creation. In ancient Hebrew, the word "Adam" does not only indicate a person or a single individual, Adam is also representative of all men and women or mankind in general. In other words, when God said he made man, he not only made a specific male named Adam, he also would later and subsequently make a woman called Eve, creating both males and females with all of THEM being covered under the umbrella of "mankind" (ADAM). There was never a gender crossing. She (Eve) DID NOT become a man, however she was included under the scope of man and mankind. The same is with Adam. he did not become a woman, but all men are included along with women as Adam or mankind as well. 

Summary, Push back & Conclusion   

I believe that I have shown that what the scriptural literalism does is deliver a first century Jewish expectation of patriarchal leadership into a modern western context in effort to make a point that women are excluded from church leadership simply because they are born women. I believe that notion is unbiblical and cannot be supported based on the information and concepts discovered and uncovered by this posting.

I feel that I have demonstrated the following points:
  1. The language of 1 Timothy 3 is standard language of the day and is commensurate with ideas of patriarchal leadership.
  2. 1 Timothy 3 made no effort to deliver a gender based discourse on church leadership. The context of the scripture was dealing with a leaders moral values ethic, not gender role distinctions.
  3. Historical literal method of biblical interpretation is problematic in many instance and is ineffective in discerning and distinguishing the nuance of scripture regarding this issue.
  4. A better method of interpretation in this case is critical contextual approach to scriptural interpretation with special attention to any possible syncretism. 
Push back:

Statement: Well, it is in the bible, it is God's word, and it should be observed and followed.

Response: I agree 100%! Only apply and seek to know how it should be followed and obeyed. For example, in 1 Cor. 11, Paul takes nearly the whole chapter to talk about how one should pray and wear their hair. Both male and female. Toward the end of the discourse, he says this:

1 Cor. 11:16 ~ But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

In other words, Paul delivers what we recognize as the word of God and states if there is a disagreement with what he is saying regarding this issue that his instructions should not be used as a hammer or a wedge to drive people away.

Is a man wearing short hair and a woman wearing long hair, scriptural or non scriptural?

Fact is that it is both! It is contained within scripture, therefore it is scriptural. However it is also a culturally commensurate and culturally relative teaching that even Paul recognized did not and does not apply to everyone everywhere. In other words the command, though contained and found within scripture was  NOT a universal command to and upon all.

There is no command that a Bishop aka: pastor, minister or other church leader MUST be a man or of the male gender. The descriptive centers around a male of a certainty. However there is no pre or proscription that church leadership was a "men's only" venture or occupation.

Conclusion:

In this instance, the historical, literal method of biblical interpretation is more similar to what we observe Islam doing when it demands the imposition of Sharia according to ANE traditions and customs upon modern society. It (Islam) summarily binds modern humanity to obscure and many times offensive ANE customs and practices. Is this wrong on it's face? NO! Christians should know that the bible contains many good ANE practices and customs, but such customs should be reconciled as that...only customs and not biblically binding or God ordered practices.

Prohibiting women from leadership because they are "the weaker vessel" is not a solid basis for prohibition especially since "all are one in Christ Jesus" (Galations 3:28). That is just not equal in salvation, but equal in Christ, to do HIS bidding as HE sees fit. After all the church belongs to HIM, not to any man or man made system.

Blessed!

His Word His Way Broadcast:

Listen to internet radio with HisWordHisWay on Blog Talk Radio

8 comments:

  1. Brother Burnett, please reread 1tim 3:14,15, where the Apostle Paul instructs the young minister Timothy on proper church conduct, which includes his earlier instructions in chapter 2
    utmost regard and love, Tarre Stanley

    ReplyDelete
  2. The reason I asked you to reread I tim2 and Itim3:15 is because the apostle Paul outlines specific instructions for proper church behaviour, and further re-solidifies the fact that these instructions are for all churches , for all times. This is not just for the unruly women in the Corinthian churches, as some assert. If any man be ignorant of these instructions, let him be remain ignorant.Brother LAstly, women, and men for that matter, have certain godly roles and functions in the church and outside of the church(see titus, and timothy)which brings glory to God.
    Blessings upon you, brother

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tarre,

    The reason I asked you to clarify is because you paid no attention to the argument I presented. I have presents nearly over 20 SOLID SCRIPTURAL points of reference that you neither address or touch and you present 2 UNEXPLAINED and non-contextualized scriptures which you think makes an argument and that supports your case....THAT my friend is living in IGNORANCE!

    First of all, back up, Paul STATES, that his endorsement is NOT an endorsement binding upon all churches as he states that "I Suffer",( did you happen to READ that? That is in 1 Tim. 2:12...Just in case you missed it the reference to point that out is clearly explained HERE )
    ...this is as opposed to "God commands" or Paul's more common phrase, "this is a commandment of the Lord"...So what appears to be a universally binding instruction as you claim is NOT a universally binding instruction, but a Pauline preference directed toward order of the church who in both cases were dealing with a high number of Gentile converts who had different customs, morals and polemics.

    Secondly, Paul's admonition was toward church order and not gender roles. There remains no CORRECTLY interpreted scripture where Paul outlines that women face some kind of "use of the Lord" restriction based on their gender.

    Question is how can you fight for gender equality in any circumstance with such antiquated and first century ANE views smuggled in as the word of God for Christians? It is NOT!

    Family roles based on gender have nothing to do with the argument and service of the Lord in HIS church based on the calling of God.

    If you are correct there are much worse issues to deal with. We would have a confused Paul who endorses and encourages the church to support some over 28 women that he references that are in ministry, pronounces that Christ has destroyed gender differences with the application of Gen. 3:28, but yet resigns women to a lesser role and calling of God all because they can be "tricked" or "deceived' by the devil??? OK, have you seen some of the "men" that serve the Lord? Can they not be "tricked" by the enemy as well?

    I love commentary, but PLEASE attempt to deal with the arguments presented and present some counter arguments that are at least plausible. You opinion doesn't mean a hill of beans to me on scriptural issues especially when I've made a scriptural argument as I have. We are not talking about the "assertions of some" we are talking about what is written here and making a substantive response to that.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ok. I will attempt to address your article.
    Your point #1 is a red herring argument. The Historical teachings of men are mute. The only thing that does matter is what is written,ie if the bible says that the office of a bishop must be XYZ, then that is what it means, nothing more, nothing less.To say that certain scriptures were writtenfor a certain histroical time, is to deny the scriptures authority and teachings for the believer
    #2 Your statement that God is the only one that is flawless and 100%correct is true; therefore, I will side with what his word clearly says and not what you add to it, while attempting to teach what his word plainly and clearly says
    #3 Your red herring argument that God doesnt literally have eyes all over, is a feeble attempt to discount and discredit what is clearly written.
    #4Context! Like you said, context is key. my question is what other meaning can God mean when he says that he suffers not a women to teach or usurp authority over the man, or that a bishop is a husband
    You said' the historical interpretationhas made the assumption that only men are leaders, pastors and bishops'. No, No, and No. The bible has declared this, NOT HISTORY!
    You said' First Tim3 is not seeking to distinguish gender roles, rather it is focusing on the characteristics...'. You are partly correct. It does both.
    You said, ' There is no command that a bishop must be a man'.THis is not true. I Tim 3 clearly says so.
    You said,' The historical, literal method of biblical interpretation is more similar to what we observe under Sharia law'. All I can say is how can you compare the Holy scriptures with that of any secular writing. There is no comparison. Period!
    As far as Pauls words in ITim 2:12, Pauls words are authoritative and are scripture unless he says that He commands and NOT the LORD( see II Peter3:16)
    Lastly, Pauls endorsement and encouragement to the "over 28 women" is not an endorsement for them as pastors and leaders, rather as helpers, succourers and assistants. Blessings Bro

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tarre,

    Thanks for the "attempt"...

    You said: "Your point #1 is a red herring argument. The Historical teachings of men are mute. The only thing that does matter is what is written,ie if the bible says that the office of a bishop must be XYZ, then that is what it means, nothing more, nothing less."

    There is nothing further from the truth. if truth is only judged or adjucated by what is written, then is Marijuana or cocaine "written" in the bible? Then how can it be wrong if it is not?

    What you express is an ultra and what we will see "selective" literalism and application of biblical truth. This is the what is called religious extremism. It is harmful and dangerous and not given to truth, it is given to appeal to extremism....we'll see, let's continue....

    You say:"To say that certain scriptures were written for a certain histroical time, is to deny the scriptures authority and teachings for the believer"

    Absolutely untrue and it only displays your lack of understanding regarding hermeneutics which is contextual examination of biblical truth and the study of historical truths in light of historical literature.

    Truth can ONLY be examined in light of it's historical context or it' sitz em laban, and the implications that it had on historical understanding.

    For example, let's take the topic of witchcraft. In the biblical context the "witch" was a prevalent occupation and even person which could be pointed to. Over time witches became less and less prevalent. Today, witches yet exist, but most not in the form contained within the bible.

    During a very dark period of Christian history, church leaders did just what you are espousing here...they took a biblical command and applied it to their time. They KILLED and terrorized folk "in the name of the Lord" because they were "witches" according to church records.

    The church regrets this period of time in history and calls it the "dark ages"...Dark not only because of what was done, but because the lack of the lack of understanding and misapplication of biblical truth...this sounds very familiar to your expressive, and overzealous commentary...

    Let's go on....

    You further rant:"therefore, I will side with what his word clearly says and not what you add to it, while attempting to teach what his word plainly and clearly says"

    No what that means is that you can't overcome a CORRECT interpretation and application of the word of God with error and obfuscation of truth...If one interprets not only in letter, but in Spirit, and in TRUTH the points I make become easy to understand even if they are not the desired or traditional path such as the one you have chosen to take or accept...

    You said:"#3 Your red herring argument that God doesnt literally have eyes all over, is a feeble attempt to discount and discredit what is clearly written."

    No this is FURTHER evidence that your point #1 as written above is FALSE...Let me remind you, YOU SAID:

    "The only thing that does matter is what is written"

    The bible describes God with feathers and multiple eyes. So many that they are in every places. I clearly explain that LITERALISM leads to confusion when trying to understand that. That is interpreted in light of context and displays the use of anthropomorphic language which further specifically made more sense during the time in which it was written.

    So are you recanting what you said earlier....if the word only counts, then why be "selective" when it comes to this. I point out the truth and why it is, for you it simply doesn't matter...

    SMH!!!!!

    SEE PT. 2

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tarre,
    Pt. 2

    You asked:"my question is what other meaning can God mean when he says that he suffers not a women to teach or usurp authority over the man,..."

    Glad you asked but this proves that you did not read the previous article. Paul says that he would that all men were single as well as he states in 1st Corinthians using the same language as he does in Timothy...why do you interpret Timothy as God speaking while interpreting Paul as speaking of personal preference in 1 Corinthians 7?

    Paul said in that scripture:

    1 Cor. 1:1 ~Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

    This word "touch" is interpreted as NOT TO MARRY as well by a good number of modern biblical interpretations. In fact Paul is pretty serious about the issue as he further states:

    1 Cor. 7:7~ For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

    Paul was SINGLE...he told the men don't marry...

    OK, you're so serious about what Paul said, then what of marriage? Then thank God Paul wasn't as confused as you...after he states these things he begins to teach on marriage....

    So what was it? Was Paul speaking for God or not?

    When Paul speaks in 1 Timothy and says..."FOR I SUFFER A WOMAN..." Do you think he is confused about who is speaking???

    NOT FOR A MINUTE...He knows exactly who is speaking and what he is saying and he is not saying it in a trance. he is speaking to an issue. A specific one which is proven by further historical studies on the subject.

    Please...your failure to accept truth on the issue is simply disconcerting and diplays selective literalism as I stated earlier.

    You've not presented a response to that point alone, and not liking the fact that it is clearly pointed out is not an argument against it. What I have set forth makes sense both historically and spiritually and is congruent and consistent with the word itself.

    You said:"or that a bishop is a husband You said' the historical interpretationhas made the assumption that only men are leaders, pastors and bishops'. No, No, and No. The bible has declared this, NOT HISTORY!

    The lesson of the scripture was NOT about gender it was about ethical and moral values of leadership. Literalists and fundamentalist misapply this topic from the initial teaching (morals and values) to gender because the male model, which was prevalent in that day, is the object lesson.

    Once again, that is handled very clearly in the article and you not liking how the word of God is meticulously distinguished, is not an argument against it.

    See part 3

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tarre,
    Pt. 3

    You said:"You said' First Tim3 is not seeking to distinguish gender roles, rather it is focusing on the characteristics...'. You are partly correct. It does both."

    This isn't a matter that one can be partially correct about...either it is distinguishing gender or it is not. Where does the scripture ever once undertake to say that "only men can be this"...it's doesn't do that. Paul simply begin to speak, instruct and teach. What does he use? The model of the day. What was that model? That model was men in leadership as that was a Patriarchal ANE custom and society as I have already outlined.

    You assert:"You said, ' There is no command that a bishop must be a man'.THis is not true. I Tim 3 clearly says so."

    You are incorrect, says that NOWHERE...chapter and verse please!

    So far as the model of interpretation you claim:You said,' The historical, literal method of biblical interpretation is more similar to what we observe under Sharia law'. All I can say is how can you compare the Holy scriptures with that of any secular writing. There is no comparison. Period!"

    my comparison is not of scripture or texts, it is the comparison of INCORRECT and fundamentalist interpretations of texts. Those things are not the same, and that you would say that I am doing that only displays that you are sloppy in reading and not given to a thorough examination of truth or statements before you formulate opinion. That is sad, because nothing I've written has changed and it is clearly understood by most who hear.

    You final comical point:"Lastly, Pauls endorsement and encouragement to the "over 28 women" is not an endorsement for them as pastors and leaders, rather as helpers, succourers and assistants."

    Yea, OK...what Paul does is encourage the church to receive prophets, preachers, teachers and leaders of the church with the same courtesy, zeal and enthusiasm as he had received. Not in some lesser manner.

    In addition, if what you believe is true, all those women could have done is be repressed, such as shut up, sit down and only talk to other women, but not even do that in church...

    As I stated, your selective literalism bleeds through and it is chalk full of holes, but thanks for the "attempt". I don't see that you've presented ONE defensible point....But anyway....

    Thanks!!!!!

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.