An Implicit Statement About Women in Ministry
For almost 150 years the Christian Church has dangerously backslidden towards liberalism and secular humanism. It has done this by ignoring the very plain words of the Bible in favor of the left-wing agenda of abolitionism. It is clear that slavery was a divinely permitted institution that our Lord clearly sanctioned in Scripture for the betterment of society. Slavery runs across the pages of both the Old and New Testament. How any good Christian man or woman could deny the validity of slavery and the social hierarchy involved, which is plainly written on our pages of Scripture, is simply beyond me!
Slavery was not just a Old Testament practice, it was a New Testament one as well. Haven't these liberal, humanist, supposedly "christian" children of the Enlightenment read the Apostle Paul? In the book of Ephesians, right after Paul talks about other social arrangements and relationships, he addresses slavery. He tells slaves to obey their masters with respect and fear (Eph. 6:5)! It also says they are to do this with a sincerity of heart. If you didn't believe Paul when he said it in Ephesians, take a look at Colossians 3:22-24 where he essentially says the same things. And it wasn't just the Apostle Paul who felt this way, Peter did also. Ever read I Peter 2:18-21, you wishy-washy Christians? Peter tells the slaves not only to obey their masters, but to be obedient even when they are harsh and cruel to them (I Pe. 2:18-19).
There are some Christians today who want to just pick and choose what they want to believe. They don't like these passages about slavery so they'd like to just cut them out of the Scriptures. Or worse yet, they bore us with this business about the "historical background" and the "Greek text." Hogwash! I don't need to know any of this whitewashing claptrap about knowing the culture, history and background of the Bible! That would imply that other books or information other than the Bible are needed to understand God's Word! If slavery was good enough for the Apostle Paul and Peter, then it is good enough for me!
It's very obvious these abolitionist Christians are taking their cues from the popular culture. The culture isn't supposed to sway our Christian beliefs. These liberals would rather make friends with the world than with God's Word. Look where we've come. Ever since we gave these coloreds more and more worldly Enlightenment rights, they keep demanding more. It is definitely a sign of the end-times where we have colored pastors preaching up front in White churches. Worse yet, we have descendants from slaves now trying to usurp their proper place in society, in direct defiance of God's word! And some so-called "christians" have the nerve to cheer this on! It's gotten so bad that the liberal media is even fawning over this uppity negro, Barrack Osama or whatever he calls himself, taking seriously this idea that he could run for President! The end-times and the imminent pretribulational rapture must definitely be upon us.
What is so nonsensical about all this is that the Bible already raised the ethical bar with slaves and their masters. Wasn't that enough for them? You find some of the most humane treatment of slaves in the Bible when compared to other religions and cultures. Paul even said in Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Now keep in mind that this only means that we are all equal positionally in Christ. Surely, it carries no connotations beyond that and no meaningful applications for other cultural arrangements. But it does show that slaves at least can have salvation.
Don't get me wrong, the stuff about Jews and Greeks does carry more meaning than just being equal positionally in Christ. We know that non-Jews are no longer second class citizens anymore like they were in Jerusalem during the Biblical times of Jesus. But just because Gentiles and Jews are on equal cultural footing doesn't mean that slaves should also eventually be on equal footing with free people. Being positionally equal with Christ should be enough for them. They should be more grateful.
Besides, the Bible never says that slavemasters should be cruel to their slaves. In those same passages I quoted above, masters are told to be nice to their slaves. Paul even urges Philemon, the slave owner, to be nice to his runaway convert slave Onesimus and treat him like a brother when he returns. You see, in the Old Testament, God tells the Israelites to treat slaves better than the surrounding culture did. And in the New Testament, the status of slaves is raised even higher, even showing them positionally equal with free people, at least with Christ. Plus, slaves are afforded a certain amount of dignity that they didn't typically receive from others in that day and age. Clearly, there is a redemptive ethic that spans through the Scriptures. But it is equally clear that this same redemptive ethic should carry no more weight or development in today's 21st century culture than it did then in that 1st century culture. Anyone who says otherwise, and ignores the plain meaning of Scripture, is just being a liberal and letting the godless secular culture tell them what is and isn't moral.
True Bible-believing Christians like me who take the Scriptures seriously know these things. The very words on the Bible are all I need. I don't need to consider this historical-cultural background business. A cultural hierarchy with slaves and masters was a good thing then and I see no reason to say we should change things now. What's next, are we going to say the atonement of Christ is no longer relevant either? Besides, doing all this "Biblical interpretation" stuff these pointy-headed scholars talk about, along with this laborious business of discovering what a text meant then and how it applies today is a lot of work. I really don't feel like putting that much work in, especially when the plain meaning of the text tells me everything I need to know.
If you are a serious Christian and take the plain meaning of the text seriously, then you will stop making excuses for the slavery passages in the Old and New Testaments. Doing so just leads to moral relativism. We need to affirm the goodness of slavery. But it's true that we also need to affirm the goodness of slaves. They are equal in being to us, they just have different roles. My role just happens to be that of a privileged free person. My slave's role as a slave does not make him ontologically inferior to me, in fact, it just complements me. Slaves should celebrate, enjoy, and be grateful for their different roles.
So now, as we enter 2007, we need to reclaim Biblical slavery and see the wonderful and beautiful role that slaves play and how they complement us free people, just the way God surely wants it for all people in all times. If you are a slave reading this, you should not be offended by all this. Rather be thankful for how God has created you and humbly submit and accept your place in society. Doing so will be an awesome spiritual experience for you. I will pray that you stop being rebellious and submit to the wonderful roles available to you as a slave. Remember, you're not less than me, you just have the different societal role as a slave. Praise God!
And to the rest of you so-called "christians," I will pray that God changes your heart and that you begin taking the Bible seriously again. And if you want to take the Bible seriously today in the 21st century, then you need to take slavery seriously. The progress of redemption stopped for these slaves in the late first century with the closing of the Biblical canon. There is no need to add to God's word today (haven't you liberal abolitionist Christians read the warnings in Revelation 22:18-19?!?!). If you want to best apply these the socially redemptive texts and themes in the Bible for those of us living today, then you will urge these slaves to know their proper place and get with the program.
That is by far the best application of God's word for today. It is surely pleasing to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to turn back the clock and rediscover the glorious roles for slaves and their place in a Christ-centered hierarchical society. Amen!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

33 comments:
Absolutely hilarious. You'll get a ton of links to this.
I just had a conversation last week with a friend who is starting a church based on Acts -- we both disagree with one another as to the applicability of Acts on the post-First Church Christians. He's a dispensationalist (pro-Acts as a course), and I'm a pantelist (revelation resolved, live the loving Kingdom life rather than what Paul professed pre-tribulation).
Awesome.
All I can say is...WOW. Brilliant! Logical consistency's a wonderful thing, ain't it? What's scary is that if you were writing this in another time and place, it wouldn't be seen as parody, but as serious exegesis!
Irenicum, there's no doubt that many truly believed this way and that not too long ago in our nation's history this type of piece would have even been considered a mainstream position. My hope is that the inconsistencies with regards to women will also eventually be viewed as absurd as well in the not too distant future.
Well written Bill... you have struck at the core issue--hermeneutics. Ken Schenck's writing on this has been helpful to me.. I want to be able to hold the Bible highly yet still allow equality for women and reject child-beating and stoning homosexuals... his approach allows me this high esteem while still accepting the "concentric circles" of intrepretation .... Brilliantly written.
Next you will be telling us we need to be stoning our children! But seriously, this is well said, but I am afraid that unless you at least mention women in their somewhere no one will catch the implicit argument here, other than in the title.
BW3
Okay, my mouth dropped open as I read this post. I recognized all those arguments! How sad though, that there are so many dear brothers and sisters in Christ holding tightly onto these same arguments against women teaching the bible to men. Godly women are not allowed to speak forth God's word to men just because they were born female. The really sad thing for me is that all my dear brothers in Christ who have been force-fed this lie and have believed it so long will not ever benefit from the wisdom that God has given me. They say I am to have the role of a complementary helper to the men yet they won't let me be complementary because they aren't allowed to hear me teach. Women don't want to silence men. Women just want to be true complements beside our brothers in Christ
Per Dr. Witherington's suggestion above, let me explain the purpose here in case anyone hasn't picked up on it. Basically, I'm calling for a consistent interpetation and application of sections of Scripture such as I Peter 2-3, Ephesians 3:18-24, Ephesians 5:22-6:9, etc, typically referred to as "household codes" by some expositers. Here we clearly have teachings on human slavery that we don't take totally "literally" today. Instead we take the redemptive themes farther and apply them to today's time, something that it totally legitimate to do. In fact, we can see abolitionism as the logical outgrowth of the type of theology that we find in the New Testament. In Philemon, we don't have Paul come right out and say "abolish slavery," for such an act would not have been totally prudent in his culture in that day. But he and others in the Scriptures did certainly lay the groundwork for ideals we all take for granted today. Which is part of the irony today. We have some screaming for a strict unmoving text when it comes to these passages and women, yet a few verses later we sing a different tune on slavery (No, these texts didn't initially mean "employees and employers"). The thoughts I've expressed in the satirical piece above would rightfully be found repugnant by most Christians today, but plenty of these same folks are not willing to afford the same dignity to women and think their "roles" should be essentially the same as they were in 1st century Palestinian culture.
There are plenty of other explicit reasons to affirm women in places of leadership in society and ministry, not the least because we already have multiple examples of those throughout the New Testament There are female deacons (Romans 16), female small business leaders (Acts 16: 11-15) probably a female apostle (Romans 16:7), and...gasp, a woman who even teaches a man (Acts 18:24-27). In Paul's teaching, the guy who is probably referenced the most to keep women in their place, affirmed their essential equality in Christ (Gal. 3:28) and gives provision for the public praying and prophesying of women within the assembly (I Cor. 11: 5). Not to mention the fact that it was a woman who first proclaimed the resurrection of Christ. There a number of other examples of significance I could pull from the New Testament and Old. The point is that there is more than meets the eye when we come to certain passages talking about women being silent or whatnot typically cited to keep women in their place. And on a related note, with the so-called "household codes," interpreting the Bible in its original context and applying it to us today takes a lot of study, work, and thought. If we just stop at the words on the page themselves then I suppose we should not be so harsh about slavery. And there lies the inconsistency with so many who claim to take the Bible literally, but are less than literal, even or honest in their application of God's Word. Therefore, I affirm the opposite of what was affirmed in the piece above: the redemptive social justice ethic that spans the pages of the Scriptures should did not just end at the end of the first century. It's perfectly justifiable for us to apply the spirit of these books and passages towards women just as we have done with the issue of slavery. I think we should carry these concepts towards women-- who even in the Old and particularly New Testament had powerful roles of leadership-- to their logical conclusion just as we have done with the issue of slavery.
Your brilliantly written piece shows how the Bible can be invoked to justify anything - and has been.
The most recent egregious example was in South Africa where the system of apartheid was in force until as recently as 1990 - a system theologically justified by the Dutch Reformed Church from certain passages in the Bible, and a system whose main designer was a highly educated Dutch Reformed Church theologian.
On the other hand, apartheid's most vociferous and militant foes cams from the ranks of the other Christian denominations.
Those who regard everything in the Bible as literally true, and apply it as is (or was) to today's society lack common sense. It's as simple as that.
When growing up (longer ago than I care to remember) I happened upon an axiom that said : "Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men".
Notwithstandinding its now politically incorrect gender bias, we might do worse than remember this axiom when reading the Bible or any other prescriptive religious tome.
This is sophistry. The Bible neither advocates or condemns slavery but teaches that the slave and freeman who are believers will enjoy equity in heaven as citizens of a far country. Scripture hardly addresses cultures and their traditions but rather behavior of people regardless of their culture.
Paul specifically states the case regarding female elders. We may not like it or be comfortable with it, but it says what it says. The trend today is to fudge on the parts of Pauline doctrine that we simply are not comfortable with in our culture. The same is done concerning homosexuals, divorced, adulterers etc.
Henry, I might suggest that you are the one "fudging" Pauls statements on slaves, women, etc. The fact is that the Scriptures do elevate slaves, but nowhere call for the abolishment of slavery outright. But I would assume that you, like me, do not read Paul's instructions on slaves as binding today, in terms of "social structure" as you apparently do with women. This is not at all to say that these passages say nothing for us today or should be "disregarded", but to rigidly apply first century social structures to the 21st century is not the best way to handle these passages. By the way, Henry, does your church require women to wear head coverings? Regardless of these debates, I think you're filtering out the many positive references to women leaders in the Scripture and only honing in on a couple highly contentious passages without regard for their historical and social context. And if Paul believed that women should never be leaders than what do you make of us his reference to Junia as "outstanding among the apostles," his commendation of Pheobe the deaconness and other female "fellow-workers" (i.e. female ministers)? What do you and others make of Priscila, prominently mentioned before her husband, who also taught over Apollos? If all women, everwhere at all times are never supposed to teach over a man, then how do we handle those inconvienient texts? If women aren't ever supposed to "speak" at any time anywhere in "church" (no church buildings back then mind you) eveywhere at all times ala I Cor. 14 then what of Paul's allowance for the public praying and prophesying of women ala I Cor. 11? I also don't buy the red herring linking female leadership to homosexual behavior and adultery! Those are unrelated issues. Perhaps, Henry, the issue is not as cut and dry as you have been led to believe. Please note that I used to express the same sentiments as you until I probed deeper into the subject.
Well, on a personal note, I support the office of deaconess. I also believe that someone divorced can serve as a deacon. My particular church disagrees with both of those positions. But in my view, the scripture is subject to interpretation. Paul's statement on women teaching [ Elder ]is emphatic.
As for women in my church wearing head coverings, they do not. And, we have no slaves. But in no way does adhering to scripture concerning women teaching men denigrate women at all. But the good thing is any believer can usually find a church with which they can be comfortable.
Paul did not command to go out and free the slaves, to overthrow the Roman government, to beat a wife, to buy slaves. His issue was the gospel and ultimately giving guidance for church culture. The thing is, culture is pliable and therefore our church life is pliable.
You seem to connect Paul's statement on women's roles as denigrating to women. Clearly that is not what he meant. He meant equal but with distinctives. But then Paul was not wrestling with political correctness.
Another reason why I am secure in my Christian preterist beliefs -- our interpretation of the Epistles as a procurement of "rules" for the First Church awaiting Christ makes more sense than it does in terms of being rules forever and ever.
These rules are ridiculous -- separating the equality of people in Christ is a form of judgement, and would be considered wrong. But then again, many Western Christians love to judge others and feel that they're secure in that from various Epistles.
For me, they're bunk -- historical reality of an early church awaiting the iminent and very quick return (in their generation, not ours) of the Christ -- not a 2000 year period of waiting imminently.
Thank God that I don't have to deal with it. Let women, gays, blacks, dwarves and the blind all serve in the Body as they feel led. No one can judge their intentions but God.
dada
vipministry.com
Henry, that your church doesn't require women to wear headcoverings yet wants to give them other restrictions based on Scripture (along with not affirming slavery) shows they and presumably you are being inconsistent, if you want to make your arguments on the "plain teachings of Scripture." I at least will give the minority of churches credit who won't allow women to do anything and make them wear headcoverings: they are at least consistent. You are willing to sift through certain teachings of Scripture as culturally bound but are unwilling to take redemptive texts to their logical conclusions. Most likely, you are making 2 Tim 2 your whole basis for women's "role" in the church while ignoring a host of other passages and considerations, and I'm willing to wager you've never looked at some of the best conservative Evangelical scholars who have come to different positions than you have on not only 2 Tim. 2 but the entire issue at hand. I've read tons of "complementarian" stuff and even held the position myself for a number of yours. But I challenge you and others who are similarly convinced of your position based on the "plain meaning of Scripture" to study other conservative Evangelical scholars on the issue who, using the same Scriptures you do, come to radically different conclusions.
One excellent reference would be
"Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy." Look it up on Amazon and get it for a good price.
Only once both sides in this debate have considered all the evidence, they will continue talking past each other and quoting their own favorite prooftexts.
Also, for the record, I'm not a preterist, but we'll tackle that perhaps some time in the future in another post.
Hi Pastor,
I am trying to determine what specifically you are after in regard to women's roles. I assume you think they qualify for the role/position of Elder. No one can deny the importance of women in life and in particular to ministry, but your position seems to be that if they cannot be Elders or pastors etc, then they are an underclass. The Bible does not take that position.
Thank you for the book references. I will certainly check into those.
I'm not sure how so many Christians come to so many conclusions about women in the New Testament. In Ephesians, Paul was writing specifical to Ephesus (see Ephesians 1:1 where it is specific). Ephesus was the Old Greek town where Matriarchal Paganism was rampant (basically, a female Goddess was primary), and the point of the Epistles was holding the First Church together in preparation for the imminent Rapture. We even see in 1 Timothy 4:7 the fear of the women of Ephesus breaking down the Gospel by promoting the old pagan ways -- which Paul was very fearful of. His rules for women are to the Ephesians of the First Church in order to keep them from falling away from the Christian faith; they're not specific to us or any other Christians or we'd see the same rules for others in Paul's writings -- and we don't.
Why do so many ignore the first verses of the various books on who the books/letters were written for? Why is it a "guide" for us when it makes significantly more sense that it was a guide to prepare His First Church for His Return?
Instead of using logic, historical accuracy and sense, we want to twist and turn things so we can impose dominion over others. No wonder the church is split into so many opposing viewpoints.
A.B. Dada
http://www.vipministry.com
Hi Henry. I do think there are women who are legitimately called to serve as pastors. I think denying their calling, gifts and abilities based on gender alone is problematic. Here is an interview with the outstanding New Testament scholar Craig Keener that you and others might find interesting regarding the broader issue:
http://www.theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=157
Hi Pastor,
Thanks for the link. I will check it out.
a.b. dada's last comment is one that bears reading. I think he represents a movement which is to diminish Pauline writings and to perhaps deny them as scripture. Of course Peter said Paul's writings are scripture. But I think the modern church is in great peril should dada's opinion become mainstream.
I would like to hear your comments on dada's remarks.
Hi again Henry. If I am reading him correctly, A.B. is coming at the text through a Preterist lens which basically sees all Scriptural prophecy fulfilled by 70AD, with the fall of Jerusalem being the final climatic event. Thus, I think he is reading a big part of the NT ethic as an interim ethic for the first generation of Christians until the "second coming" which in his line of thought came in 70AD with the destruction of Jerusalem. But perhaps I have some of the particulars wrong here on his specific position.
I do not agree with this interpretation of things. I am a partial-preterist and do believe that this was a significant event predicted by Christ Himself in the Olivet Discourses ("this generation shall not pass away until all these things have happened"). But I do not read all prophecy being fulfilled in the 70AD event, particularly the Second Coming. I think full preterist handlings of I Cor. 15, I Thess. 4, Acts 1:11, Revelation 21-22, etc are lacking to say the least. But I really don't want to turn this thread into a debate and discussion about full preterism or any other interpretive grid on prophecy. I'm sure I'll raise interpretive issues on prophecy in the not-to-distant future though.
What a great example of Scripture twisting. How accurate was that word "sophistry". For Paul clearly says after his admonition against women preaching that "...the things I am writing to you are the Lord's commandments. If anyone ignores this, he shall be ignored." (1 Cor 14:37-38)Who knows better about the role of women in the church? Mr. Barnwell or God? Mr. Barnwell obviously would like to ignore God because the feminists in his church (and home) are a much more present threat to his well being than the Creator. It's too bad the Scriptures didn't warn us of the dangers of making "pastors" of 26 year old boys.
Sorry, anon, you are missing the broader points and I see you fail to even engage with the points being raised and prefer name calling. Also, I'm not a "feminist" and I can't think of any feminists in my home or church. I take it with your reference to I Cor. 14:37-38, that you are harkening back to I Cor. 14:34-35, claiming indirectly that I am "ignoring the plain teaching of Scripture." Well, let me ask you, did Paul contradict himself regarding the "silence" of women when just several chapters earlier he allows for the public praying and propheysing of women? Also, does your church allow congregational singing for both women and men? Are women ever allowed to give announcements? If so, then I guess you aren't following this passage as you are interpreting it, since the women aren't being "silent." Keep in mind this is a passage about orderly worship, and when taking everything into account, the inference is women in ancient congregations interreputing the worship service with talking and questions. If you think the application for churches today is for women to never sing, give an announcement, or yes even have some form of leadership then you are making a wild lead in exegetical application.
If you read this as something implying women have no business making a peep ever everywhere for all time, then you better make sure your church is being consistent in this area. Read a few commentaries and do a little background investigation, including all of the relevant material before you claim to be a source of Scriptural authority. Maybe, just maybe, anon, you are reading these verses out of context and there is more going on that meets that eye.
Hmm, so you're argument is that either the Bible contradicts itself or that my church's "inconsistency" in allowing women to sing justifies your church's position of giving leadership roles to women. Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. When you really want to find something in the Bible (don't want to alienate the ladies!) you can find Waldo if you look hard enough.
No, anon, I don't think the Bible is inherantly contradictory, just more complicated on some issues than some people would like to think. Speaking of Scripture, I am using and applying Scripture for my arguments, which detractors are not really responding to. Most of the naysayers here have instead resulted toinsults or an out of hand dismissive, not their Scriptural knowlege and interpretive and application skills. And I'm glad you are at least being honest that your church is inconsistent. As to women's leadership roles in both the Old and New Testament, I'd suggest you do a little more digging because there are plenty of instances.
Bill,
I like your LewRockwell.com articles and enjoy your blog. I am also more open minded than many in the self-labeled "conservative" theological camp regarding the role of women. The only thing I would add as a consideration to your article is that if we take slavery seriously then we must also take the Bible's laws about how slavery should be carried out seriously. Slavery as it was practiced in America violated many Biblical teachings. Frankly, I think indentured servitude to make restitution for a crime would be much more just and merciful than our penal system.
Your argument was excellent and persuasive, I would just put a little more precise theological point on the issue of slavery and the Bible. Keep up the good work!
Hi Toby. Thanks for the comments. I do agree that slavery in Biblical times was different than African based American slavery, but still just about everybody would not be willing to return to Greco-Roman slavery. However, in terms of the penal system, I definitely think a restitution system of some sorts would be better in many respects than the overcrowded, highly expensive and often ineffective prisons. I'd much rather see an embezzler have to pay back three times what he stole than have to pay for his imprisonment, along with the rest of the taxpayers, for 10 years.
Hi Pastor Barnwell,
You are doing well with your calm and respectful answers to questions and accusations. Scripture says in 2 Timothy 2:24-25 "The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition".
You have been talked to in a disrespectful manner, yet you answered back with gentleness. That is a true sign of a godly leader. Keep up the good work.
I agree--this argument is sophistry and Scripture twisting. I think Rev. R. L. Dabney did the quintessential job of answering this argument (http://www.biblebb.com/files/RD-001WP.htm).
I guess I got here a little late, but it seems to me that you have no insight into the implications of the slavery passage, or fail to recognize that most people are simply indentured servants with enough liberty to secure their performance.
However, the passages address the attitudes we should have in our vocation.
Regarding women in leadership positions. I find you utterly clueless. If you consider the "pattern" showed to Moses in the mount (Heb 8), the Levitical priesthood was entirely male. There were sacrifices that had to be eaten only by the priests. If you look at the Scriptures, every book or epistle was written by a male vessel. If you consider the 12 apostles, there was not a woman among them - maybe Jesus was culturally biased; how absurd.
If you examine the other New Testament Scriptures about women and about Church leadership, it should be obvious there is no passage that states, "a deaconess" must be", despite the fact that Paul included instructions to both Timothy and Titus! (In the mouth of two or three witnesses...)
The woman's movement is nothing but the leaven of Jezebel, and the rebellion of those who lack the meekness and sincerity to live out 1 Peter 2:4 (no one wants to pay that price - they'd rather please themselves than God.)
I will certainly follow Solomon's counsel from Proverbs 12:7 -
"Go from the presence of a foolish man when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."
A virtuous woman is indeed a rare, and I don't know who can find her, not simply as a person, but also as it pertains to the "Church".
Solomon also said:
"Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: (28) Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. (29) Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."
And in conclusion one that explains the tone of my response:
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Pro 26:5
Well, at least in light of the falling away, the time of the Lord's return grow ever closer...
Len, rather than spouting off platitudes and insults I'd encourage you to actually read some of the resources I've laid out by conservative scholars who are experts in this field. And no, this isn't part of a "liberal falling away" and it's no sure thing we are the "final generation" before Christ's return. Until you really know where I'm coming from, don't pompously label me as "clueless." Every objection you raised has been dealt with by conservative egalitarian scholars.
This is the first blog I have ever entered - silver-surfer! Bill, I appreciated the gentleness and graciousness of your responses - and enjoyed the irony of your article.
I'm pleased you raised the issue of "gifting". Presumably, those who dismiss your position would argue that women can never be gifted with any of the ministries described in the NT. This would be a brave, if unbiblical belief as, at the very least in Acts, women are gifted as prophets! If women are gifted spiritually how can the body be denied the benefits of their gifting? Somehow in all of the detail some of your responders have missed the point about gifts and ministries - surely they are to build up the Body of Christ, not to gratify a particular sexual stereotype.
I have been in churches where poor preferences have been made between ungifted men and gifted women - with sad results for the churches!
Good wishes
Bill (another one)
Ephesians 5:22-6:9 (NIV)
Wives and Husbands
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. "This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Children and Parents
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise— "that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth. "Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.
Slaves and Masters
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
If we are to read the literal meaning of Ephesians 6:5-9 as it being necessary for us to become involved in slavery, it seems we should read the literal meaning of Ephesians 5:22-6:4 in the same manner. In doing so, not only should we become slave masters, but we should get married and have kids, too. Not getting married or not having kids would be just as much an abomination of God’s Word.
It would be ridiculous to think that we must get married, have children, and be slave masters today. So, in that sense, it would seem that you are right in saying that we shouldn’t take all scripture literal today. But, it seems your example is a bad example. And it’s a bad example because your interpretation has never been the meaning of those verses; not even in Ephesus at the time Paul was writing.
Why can that not be the literal meaning of the verses? Because if that’s what Paul was writing here, he is in direct contradiction to himself. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul talks about marriage. He opens with the statement that it is good not to marry. In addition to that, Paul is not married himself. How could it be good not to marry as seen in his life and other letters, but NOT be good to not marry in this letter? The answer is it cannot.
Paul was not writing to show the necessity of these institutions. It was not necessary for people to get married, have kids, or be involved in slavery to honor God at that time. He was writing so people understood our God of authority and, in turn, understood how they could honor him in the roles they presently filled.
Should someone get married if presently not married? Of course not! Not now or then. But, in marriage, the wife is supposed to submit. This is true then, now, and forever. Should someone have kids if presently without kids? Of course not! Not now or then. But, in the family, children are supposed to submit. This is true then, now, and forever. Though I've only spoken of the women and children so far, these institutions are not just for women and children. Men and parents are supposed to honor God in their positions of leadership within these institutions, as well.
In the same way, should someone get slaves or become one if presently not involved in slavery? Of course not! Not now or then. But, in slavery, the slaves are supposed to submit. This is true then, now, and forever. Our culture abolished slavery. And, rightly so. Slave masters were hideously cruel to their slaves. God intended the institution of slavery to be different and was anything but honored by what slavery became in America.
Can slavery exist in a God honoring way? Absolutely! But, using these verses to show that we should, once again, involve ourselves in slavery in this country, even if we could get it right in God’s eyes, is misusing the Word of God.
I realize that my response does not specifically go into the role women are supposed to have in the church. And, I realize your article was written, indirectly, on that issue. I choose not to respond to that issue at this time, though, because I feel your original article is insufficient in showing that women can have authority over men in the church. I look forward to a future article!
米蘭情趣用品,情趣用品,飛機杯,自慰套,充氣娃娃,AV女優.按摩棒,跳蛋,潤滑液,角色扮演,情趣內衣,自慰器,穿戴蝴蝶
免費視訊聊天,辣妹視訊,視訊交友網,美女視訊,視訊交友,視訊交友90739,成人聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,情色視訊,情人視訊網,視訊美女
一葉情貼圖片區,免費視訊聊天室,免費視訊,ut聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,影音視訊聊天室,
辣妹視訊,美女視訊,視訊交友網,視訊聊天室,視訊交友,視訊美女,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊交友90739,免費視訊聊天室,成人聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊交友aooyy
哈啦聊天室,辣妺視訊,A片,色情A片,視訊,080視訊聊天室,視訊美女34c,視訊情人高雄網,視訊交友高雄網,0204貼圖區,sex520免費影片,情色貼圖,視訊ukiss,視訊ggoo,視訊美女ggoo
080苗栗人聊天室,080中部人聊天室ut,ut影音視訊聊天室13077,視訊做愛,kk777視訊俱樂部,上班族聊天室,聊天室找一夜
A片下載,成人影片下載,免費A片下載,日本A片,情色A片,免費A片,成人影城,成人電影
影音視訊聊天室,辣妹視訊
情趣,情趣,視訊交友,情趣用品,情趣用品,飛機杯,自慰套,自慰套,自慰套,自慰器,充氣娃娃,AV,按摩棒,電動按摩棒,情趣按摩棒,按摩棒,跳蛋,跳蛋,跳蛋,男女,潤滑液,SM,情趣內衣,內衣,性感內衣,角色扮演,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^
Post a Comment