wo2

From: "Mark Loftus" <mloftus955@hotmail.com>

From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>
Subject: [cobu] another note
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 02:16:22 -0500

I'm not being contentious or anything, but think about it
- do we "do" everything in the Bible.
Do you pluck out your eye?

Tom, I sure don't think the Jews did that back then, or the early
christians, but it is an example that the literality and surface level of
the scripture is lacking but the real message to us is from the spiritual,
that wheat which is within the seed. Plucking out the eye literally would
have done no good, since lust is a heart issue.
This applies in a spiritual sense, have we not, by our departure from COBU,
plucked out our former teacher?

Do you pray for Paul?

The writings of the New Testament were addressed to the 1st century
believers, so its like we are reading someone else's mail and the literal
application *often* (not always) doesn't apply to those 2,000 years later.

Do you light a lamp? Yes, a few times literally and often spiritually.

Times do change things a little.

Again, the Word does not change, Jesus has not changed.
Paul also wrote concerning those who would put a women as a teacher that
"those who don't abide by this rule are not recognized". So you have an
argument with him.

Sin and the flesh hasn't changed, but our surroundings and how we >deal
with it has.

The overcoming of sin and how Jesus brings that about in our lives hasn't
changed either.

(I don't think I've ever prayed for Paul)
========================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>>

From: "Sohm Ving" <ving3@hotmail.com>>
> I am about to post the "Where Women Belong" onelist discussion on page. By far the largest file ever posted.
I still have more to say. But need to read the rest of the exchange first.
If you're referring to our discussion last week, you must call it the
"debate of the brothers"; if you'll notice - only Carol stuck in a word.
The rest of the sisters let us live in our la la land.

============================================================
From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com

On 11/24/99 14:11:23 you wrote:>
>From: "Mark Loftus" <mloftus955@hotmail.com>>
>As far as living in la la land, you can speak for yourself on that.
>This is the same thing I say to those who claim we descended from apes, and are equal with everything.
Those liberals should speak for themselves.
>If you're referring to our discussion last week, you must call it the
>>"debate of the brothers"; if you'll notice - only Carol stuck in a word.
>>The rest of the sisters let us live in our la la land. Tom P

Dear brother Mark,
You seem to be slightly hostile about this issue.
I think that Mike is probably saying that since we have
never been women that we can not possibly know what it
is to be a woman, but that women have found it easier not to
try and correct us since we already assume we know all there is
to know about any given subject, which of course is
ludicrous because in order to know all there is to know
about being a woman, you would have to be a woman and had you
my dear brother been a woman you would not be fit to preach
on this subject according to your own rules of silence for
women and I assume those who used to be women which I am not saying you are.
I have found that when you stop fearing women, you don't
seem to need as many rules about what they should and
should not do, (as if they would listen anyway):-)
But then I have always been a conservaberal or aliberservative.
Have fun, drink Pepsi, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da!!!!!!!
==========================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>
As you may recall, this started with Watchman Nee and his "blind spots"
- especially with women. He had the same chauvinistic attitudes we all
know and love.
Yet, were it not for women - well you remember the rest of the story.
We have now come full circle on blind spots.
(I don't remember if I mentioned - when I was talking with a brother
about this years ago - about how we all have "blind spots" he immediately
hit back "Well I don't have any blind spots!"
And all I can do is think, "Gee, there's one right there.")
The whole point about a blind spot is that we ourselves cannot see it.
It's as plain as the nose on our face, but we can't see the plank in our own
eye. This is for us all (obviously), - I don't want this to be misconstrued
as "hitting back" at the chauvinist who wrote below. . . .
======================================================
From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com
I would like to propose an alternate theory about what
Paul wrote concerning the church and whether women should speak.
First it is apparent in scripture that many sisters were
held in high regard and respect. Therefore, I don't think
it had to do with the quality of input.
I believe that time was a major issue in the times of Paul
due to persecution. When the brethren came together they
probably needed to hold the business end of things to a
minimum. I have found that my wife and I will quite often
reach similar conclusions by different routes. She likes to
go over each detail and get the feeling of what she is
describing while I like to get right to the solution which
leaves her feeling as if things are unresolved.
So I find it to be "like a law" that when a quick decision
is imperative I better make it, but when I want a more
complete resolution we need to solve it together. Could be
what was going on? Who knows?
Also, a slightly different theory, let me state that very
few women could furnish their own support back then and
so were dependent on the men for livelihood, for protection,
and for social standing. A woman who thought too clearly
might make a man look bad in public which could very easily
have torn apart the delicate unity of the early church and resulted
in more persecution. Who knows? Coulda' been.
Any who, I never found it to be a real big issue myself.
Love............................................Rick
==================================================
Macman,God's ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts than our thoughts.
Scripture doesn't agree with your theory. Paul said why women should keep
silent-he was basically saying that women were not to be in a teaching
position over men in the church but God entrusts them to teach their
children at home how to be Godly men and women. What a great responsibility
for women! Think of the generations that have been raised by Godly mothers
and grandmothers. God has entrusted generations of children to women. That
seems to show quite clearly how God values women. Remember that Paul
reminded Timothy that he had been taught by his grandmother from the sacred
scriptures. Paul isn't putting women down. But there is an order that God
has ordained.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
===========================================

I have found that when you stop fearing women, you don't
seem to need as many rules about what they should and
should not do, (as if they would listen anyway):-)
But then I have always been a conservaberal or a
liberservative.

Have fun, drink Pepsi, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da!!!!!!!

Sometimes I think I am addicted to Pepsi........

My daughter is the oldest kiddie in the family,
and I've always tried to influence her to speak
her mind, she has listened well, and well I usually
have to walk my talk. My son of course has big
shoes to fill when following big sister.

Yep I have been in churches that real had
women in "their place". I however feel like
someone else in the list wrote....
..."male and female created He them"
as referring to "man".
and also Jesus explained to those trying
to trick Him about the brothers marrying
the same wife, there is neither male nor
female in heaven.

I have to say praise His Holy Holy Name
for the sisters, because they were probably
the ones praying for us when we were in the
world sinning away. Sometimes we men
need to keep silence and bring every word
under the Lordship of King Jesus.

Thank you Jesus for my sisters in Your
Holy family.

Raynard Merritt n8vzl@qsl.net
And Jesus said to them, "This is my commandment, that you love one another."
========================================================
From: "Mark Loftus" <mloftus955@hotmail.com>

From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com

Dear brother Mark,

You seem to be slightly hostile about this issue.

What hostile? I said that with no answers name calling would start.
It did a few times and I asked the bro to merely speak for himself.
Sticks and stones... whatever, I am not trying to flame anyone.
I was quite surprised it began to escalate again, that serves no good
purpose. Before the name calling the discussion was from a biblical base but now it has changed. There was no answers to the scriptures that were given, so then the name calling and accusation starts, the first time I ignored it, after answering prior accusations.

This name calling stuff should stop, only the biblical and practical aspects
of the discussion interest me.

I think that Mike is probably saying that since we have
never been women that we can not possibly know what it
is to be a woman, but that women have found it easier not to
try and correct us since we already assume we know all there is
to know about any given subject, which of course is
ludicrous because in order to know all there is to know
about being a woman, you would have to be a woman and had you
my dear brother been a woman you would not be fit to preach
on this subject according to your own rules of silence for
women and I assume those who used to be women which I am
not saying you are.

I was responding to Tom and not to Mike, Tom was doing the name calling, so I think something is being misconstrued.
I'm not aware of Mike saying anything like that unless I missed something,
but that he would post the discussion on the site. I wasn't responding to
anything like what you're talking about.

Have fun, drink Pepsi, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da!!!!!!!

Actually I was having fun but I am confused by your post.
So lets keep things calm. ML
========================================================
From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com>>
,OK Tom then,
>>I think that Mike is probably saying that since we have
>>never been women that we can not possibly know what it>>is to be a woman,
I assume you're with me at this point.
>>but that women have found it easier not to
>>try and correct us since we already assume we know all there is
>>to know about any given subject,
Just a guy thing,in reference to la-la land which I believe was a whimsical
reference to the aforementioned guy know-it-all thing which of course is
>>ludicrous because in order to know all there is to know
>>about being a woman, you would have to be a woman
i.e. to see things from a woman's point of view and had you
>>my dear brother been a woman you would not be fit to preach
>>on this subject according to your own rules of silence forewomen
women should not speak in the church
and I assume those who used to be women which I am>>not saying you are.
An attempt at comedy, by way of the sex change thing which I
understand some would not find funny.>>
>I was responding to Tom and not to Mike, Tom was doing the name calling, so I
>think something is being misconstrued.
OK I got the Tom thing wrong apparently, and I didn't see the name calling(although I'm not saying it wasn't there) name calling being in the ear of the beholder.
>I'm not aware of Mike saying anything like that unless I missed something, but that he would post the discussion on the site. I wasn't responding to anything like what you're talking about.OK OK I said it was Tom:-)I have found that when you stop fearing women, you don't
seem to need as many rules about what they should and should not do, (as if they would listen anyway):-) But then I have always been a conservaberal or a>>liberservative.
I think that people who have a deep need to push the women in
church rules issue seem to be insecure. Just my humble opinion.
Just like the people who preach the most against the homosexual
menace seem to fear themselves falling prey. Again, just my humble opinion.
> I am confused by your post.>So lets keep things calm. ML
I hope I have cleared up any "confusion" and if I get any more calm
my heart might stop. (My son is rubbing my back) :-)
====================================================
From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>-

Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 1:46 PM
Dear Macman,
In spite of all the supposed defending of the sisters that has been flying
back and forth(forget about defending scripture by the way-after all it is
only coming from God himself and what does He known about it anyway?)I sense a bit of "hostility"all the way around concerning this issue.
Where was I (getting so old, can't really communicate like I used to) ohyes. Mark made a key point that the argument is with Paul, as in the Damascus Road Paul. He is right. Paul made it an issue. One of many that he dealt with in his letters to the Corinthians. They were probably the most messed up church in the new testament. Did Christ still love them. You bet! Did Paul still love them? You bet! Did he let them get away with their faulty ideas? No way. He loved them too much to do that. He didn't try to please men either. The truth meant too much to him. It should with us too. And if feelings get hurt, or toes get stepped on that's what forgiveness is for.David said faithful are the wounds of a friend. But I appeal to you brothers and sisters for whom Christ died, don't treat scripture like a second class citizen. Read Psalm 119. David had a love affair with God's word. The law of the Lord, the commandments of the Lord, the word. May we learn to love it like that. Remember, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus said he loves me who keeps my word. The only way we can keep His word is if we value His word. Not just some of His word but all of it.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
=======================================================
From: lori <lledonne@ncx.com>
Steve,
You make sense, but I think you have to admit that some things in scripture
are pretty confusing. I take the stance, if it's in there, it's true and
it's right even if I don't understand it because God knew we wouldn't
understand it all. (There's probably a big lesson for us just in that
fact.) I think Amy's view makes sense. Being silent in the church
couldn't mean total silence or else there'd be no point to having women
prophesy and such. The part about teaching. Okay, I'll accept that but
honestly, with some of the doctrine taught today by men who purport to be
teachers....If God used a donkey to talk some sense into what's his name,
couldn't he use a woman? I think truth is more important. I think when
Christians are sowing to the Spirit that's when you find yourself in that
"neither male nor female" place. Let me give you my take on Jesus with
Martha and Mary. Martha was in the kitchen taking care of some
traditionally woman-type chores. Mary sat at His feet listening to His
teaching. Jesus didn't say, '"Martha, get in here and listen to me." And
He likewise didn't tell Mary to get out to the kitchen and get to work,
make him some dinner. When Martha raised the issue, Jesus told her what was
better, but He let them choose and He didn't condemn either's choice. To
me, that is precious. (But then you have that woman in the leaden ephah
in the OT that is wickedness??? If anyone can free my mind of that one,
please do) I know what Paul said, but remember the part in the NT where
Paul and Barnabas (I think) had a disagreement and went their separate
ways. Does it say who was right? The disagreement must have loomed large
in their eyes for them to have parted ways, but if it was, why weren't we
told so we could be saved from the "wrong" one? And then look around you
and be reminded how God loves variety. And really, don't you too? I don't
mean variety to the point of abandoning His word and ways, but there are
lots of parts of the body and I suppose things that bug the foot might not
bother the arm so much. Is this making any sense? I'm getting really
tired now so I think I'd better quit.
God bless you.
Lori
==============================================================

From: Logbearer@aol.com

In a message dated 11/24/99 2:46:54 PM,

BigMac55@ix.netcom.com wrote:
<<I have found that when you stop fearing women, you don't
seem to need as many rules about what they should and
should not do, (as if they would listen anyway):-)>>

OK, OK, I can't keep silent anymore! First of all, the above post is the
most "chauvinistic" I've seen so far-I'm assuming by the smile it was a joke...
I'm also assuming that this heated debate centers around the passage from
1Cor 14:35-36 - "For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." It is
my understanding that in the early church, men sat on one side of the
assembly and women sat on the other. In the church at Corinth, during the
sermons, women were calling out to their husbands with questions regarding
the gospel message being preached, and this practice became increasingly
disruptive ( I don't have any historical documentation on this theory, has
anyone done any research?)
1Cor 11:5 refers to women praying and prophesying; Acts 2:17-18 also ascribes
to women an active speaking role, specifically in the last days.
Because women are more emotionally sensitive, more relationship oriented, we
play a crucial and entirely necessary role in carrying out God's plan, which
surely involves the fulfillment of the commandment to love one another. God
does not expect me to be submissive to just any man that comes strolling down
the pike; He does expect me to submit to the pastoral authority under which
he has placed me. I would not be comfortable in a church body where the
primary pastor was a woman, not because a woman isn't capable, but because it
demonstrates that men are abdicating their God ordained responsibility to lead.
This doesn't mean that women should be summarily forbidden from involvement
in teaching, leadership, or pastoral care in the church. And there's another
thing - define "church". Is it the entire building, the main sanctuary, the
formal service, the Bible study, the administrative planning meeting? I am
convinced that if women were literally silent "in the church" today, the
"church" would not be functioning.
Also consider in regards to having authority over men (1Tim 2:11-12) that
spiritual maturity, or coming of age, to manhood, is not a chronological
matter (1 Cor 13:8-12). I think the requirement of submissiveness for women
is specifically related to Jesus' reproach of the Church of Thyatira,
tolerating the woman Jezebel, the false prophetess, because we know we are
not contending against flesh and blood (Eph 6:12)
In Christ, Amy
==============================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

In a message dated 11/24/99 3:36:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
BigMac55@ix.netcom.com writes:
<< Just as a prelude, did any one
beside brother Mark get confused by my post to him about the woman issue? >>

Dear Rick:
          I have long wondered why there should be confusion or controversy
at all, given the unequivocal nature of Paul's words and the independence
from 'culture' of the Authority to which he referred them; except that the
love of confusion (for the cover that it affords sin) must have been as busy
in that ancient culture as it is in this modern one.
          Stewart's deliberate turning of things upside down (in the name of
'motivation'), not only permitting but encouraging women to speak in church,
and not only that but requiring brothers who would speak to sit down in
deference to them, was the abomination for which I decided that I could
stomach neither him nor his experiment any longer. The ground that he
violently provided is the ground upon which my legal wife continues to flout
my authority to this day, so that she not only continues with him against me
in the name of 'the will of God', but already has safely deposited two of my
daughters with him to be treated to the titillation of his upside down world.
                    - Neil
===============================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

Logbearer@aol.com writes:<< It is
my understanding that in the early church, men sat on one side of the
assembly and women sat on the other. In the church at Corinth, during the
sermons, women were calling out to their husbands with questions regarding
the gospel message being preached, and this practice became increasingly
disruptive ( I don't have any historical documentation on this theory, has
anyone done any research?) >>
Dear Amy:
     I think you have here one of the rumors according to whose influence
ambitious women would overthrow the scripture that overthrows their ambition.
     There is a continuum between the commandment of women neither to teach
nor to have authority over men and this admonition that it is shameful for a
woman to speak in church. Swinish contentions to the contrary, the apostle's
wisdom protects and preserves the images for which male and female exist in
distinction from one another. It is 'for the angels', which is to say that it
is for the sake of the likenesses invested in male and female, that outward
decorum should be maintained in tandem with an inward banishing of
distinctions. This very distinction between 'outward' and 'inward' life is
one of the distinctions embodied and represented in the distinction of female
from male; and as the flesh is distinct from the spirit, and appointed to
subservience to it, nevertheless it is clear that it has its own glory and
rights of its own as well.                 - Neil
===================================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

Logbearer@aol.com writes:
<< Because women are more emotionally sensitive, more relationship oriented, we
play a crucial and entirely necessary role in carrying out God's plan, which
surely involves the fulfillment of the commandment to love one another. >>

Women's gifts are indispensable, of course. They knit together the
interiors. They naturally whisper and hear whispering that men do not hear.
The wise man wishes that the wise woman would whisper in his ear whenever she
is moved. - Neil
==================================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

Logbearer@aol.com writes:<< And there's another thing - define "church". >>

The assembly of the whole body of believers. When the church is
assembled, women are to keep silent. Right women know it, too, and are not in
the least perturbed. - Neil
===================================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

Logbearer@aol.com writes:
<< God does not expect me to be submissive to just any man that comes strolling down
the pike; >>
Indeed, but to be submissive only to your own men, who, presumably would
not allow other men to subject you. - Neil
===========================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

Logbearer@aol.com writes:
<< He does expect me to submit to the pastoral authority under which
he has placed me. I would not be comfortable in a church body where the
primary pastor was a woman, not because a woman isn't capable, but because it
demonstrates that men are abdicating their God ordained responsibility to lead.
>>
     An unmarried woman remains under the 'pastoral authority' of her father.
A married woman is under the 'pastoral authority' of her husband. There are,
of course, 'pastors' and supposed 'authorities' who, for the sake of some
supposed superceding authority of their own either subtly or openly dismiss
the authority of husbands and fathers.
     The 'discomfort' to which you have referred, and the 'capability' that
you are willing to ascribe, sneakily leave in place the presumption and the
usurpation by which the flesh would supplant the spirit.
                      - Neil
=======================================================================
[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Well if I am no longer under "The Law" why should my sisters be?

[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

These are Paul's opinions written in a letter to a new church. Opinions if we could
ask him today..."Should we consider your words to be scripture brother Paul"?
I think Paul would have ceased to write letters if he thought they would become equal
to scripture.

I think Paul was a mighty mighty man of God, but I never accept his words
as scripture. I do accept them as edifying words toward the church, and yes
his words edify me. I accept the gospels and revelation as scripture, I accept
the OT as scripture, but I am not under the Law. I am rather free, haven't we said
this quite often here, we are free. Not free to sin but free to choose, free to live
our life according to His word, and if we cannot accept other men's interpretation
of that Word, then it is up to us as free persons to interpret it according to His
Word in us and in His Spirit and His Truth. Just speaking the words...
"Spirit and Truth" are heavy to me.

Raynard Merritt n8vzl@qsl.net
And Jesus said to them, "This is my commandment, that you love one another."
============================================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
Dear Ray,
I want to thank you for the candidness with which you expressed yourself.
I think you touched on an underlying issue, perhaps a more fundamental
one, beneath the ongoing debate about women serving as elders/pastors.
The issue I'm talking about is the authority of Scripture.
Regarding your comment that Paul's letters were just his opinion: Please
consider that the Apostle Peter wrote that the Apostle Paul’s “...letters
contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and
unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own
destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16). In this Scripture, Peter equated Paul's
writings with "the other Scriptures." It is also true that Scriptures may
be misunderstood and misapplied, and I'll address that below, but first
things first.
Paul wrote to the Thessalonian church, "And we also thank God continually
because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you
accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of
God, which is at work in you who believe" (1Thess. 2:13). In 4:8, after
giving them some moral exhortations, he wrote, "Therefore, he who rejects
this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy
Spirit." In 5:27, he wrote, "I charge you before the Lord to have this
letter read to all the brothers." It seems to me that Paul knew that he
was commissioned by Christ to be one of Christ's representatives to speak
and write Christ's words to Christ's church. Not every letter he wrote
became Scripture, but what the Holy Spirit has preserved has, from the
beginning, been recognized by the church as Scriptural and authoritative.
About twisting the Scriptures: I realize that all of us on this onelist
have been abused by someone who was in authority and who misused the
Scriptures. For all of us, I would like to offer the following
encouragement. The Bible is God's love letter to us, His dear children.
What it contains is for His glory and our good; He wants the best for us.
Does that mean that we will always get what we want? Of course not! Good
parents don't always give their children what they want, but what they
need, and when they need it. Does that mean that we will never get what
we want? Again, the answer is no! God sometimes gives us things for our
enjoyment, just the way good parents do.
If God restricts our freedom in certain areas, let's trust that He's
doing it for His glory and our good, whether we understand it or not.
He's a good father. At the same time, let's do our best to try to
understand what He did say in His Word, even if some portions "contain
some things that are hard to understand." God wrote it and preserved it
because He wanted to communicate with us, His children. Let’s be like
Samuel, who wanted to hear God when he said, “Speak, Lord, for your
servant is listening” (1 Sam. 3:10). Let’s ask God to speak with us and
let’s tell Him we want to listen and learn and live in a way that's
pleasing to Him.
In Christ,
Bob San Pascual
========================================================

All right, put 'em up:

An unmarried woman remains under the 'pastoral authority' of her father.
A married woman is under the 'pastoral authority' of her husband. There are,
of course, 'pastors' and supposed 'authorities' who, for the sake of some
supposed superceding authority of their own either subtly or openly dismiss
the authority of husbands and fathers.
     Indeed, but to be submissive only to your own men, who, presumably would
not allow other men to subject you.
   The preceding two posts were from Neil. My answer will tie in
   with the assertion below that My post with the smile was the most
   chauvinistic of all. A man of faith who is not fearing and is
   trusting in the Lord, does not need the weight of a rule to give
   him authority, he has it. My observation has been that the
   strongest marriages I have seen have been the ones in which there is
   a true partnership. EX> If my wife is correct about a matter but
   I say "no, I am the authority of this household, blah,blah,blah"
   I am acting the part of the fool. The truth is the highest
   authority and we are all subject to Him.
          I have long wondered why there should be confusion or controversy
at all, given the unequivocal nature of Paul's words and the independence
from 'culture' of the Authority to which he referred them; except that the
love of confusion (for the cover that it affords sin) must have been as busy
in that ancient culture as it is in this modern one.
   My observation again, has been that those who spent the most time
   preaching this doctrine were the ones doing a great deal of covering
   up. Simply talking personal experience here.
<<I have found that when you stop fearing women, you don't
seem to need as many rules about what they should and
should not do, (as if they would listen anyway):-)>>
OK, OK, I can't keep silent anymore! First of all, the above post is the
most "chauvinistic" I've seen so far-I'm assuming by the smile it was a joke...Amy?
   My dear friend. The section in parenthesis was included for a smile, yes.
   The post in general, was far from a joke. When I was concentrating on
   preaching to my wife how she needed to listen to my authority it was
   anything but.....I finally began to ask myself, why does this seem so
important?   The more I concentrate on kindness and my own obedience, the more
   I valued my wife as a person, partner, co-pilgrim the more our relationship
   healed. I am head of my household in my obedience to Christ and through
   this.....if everyone here was to pull away I would walk with our Lord
   and let the chips fall where they might.
God's ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts than our thoughts.
Scripture doesn't agree with your theory. Paul said why women should keep
silent-he was basically saying that women were not to be in a teaching
position over men in the church but God entrusts them to teach their
children at home how to be Godly men and women. Dear Macman,
In spite of all the supposed defending of the sisters that has been flying
back and forth(forget about defending scripture by the way-after all it is
only coming from God himself and what does He known about it anyway?)I sense
a bit of "hostility"all the way around concerning this issue.   .Steve?
   Last but not least, the brothers I have known who spend the most
   time trying to corral their families lose them, drive them away,
   or break them down. OK, here is an ALLEGORY....
   The women of the village wanted to share the responsibility of
   guarding and standing watch. The men said, "this can not be allowed.
   Women can not do our job, they are not as strong,etc,etc..."
   But the women prevailed. After a while the men became lax in
   their responsibility. They became drunkards and shiftless
   lay-abouts. Their need to be needed was in a bad way. One neght
   the village came under attack, but the men were too drunk and too
   discouraged to care. Let the women do it. And they all died.
   I suggest that Paul said what he did for the sake of the men.
   BUT... bottom line is truth is truth wherever it comes from. And
   if you won't get lazy and fall asleep you need not fear your women
   taking over. They really don't want to, but they generally won't
   accept being dealt with harshly or as children. I just can't imagine
   Jesus worrying all about this issue. He seemed to spend a lot of time
   sisters and I don't remember Him saying, "Silence you women".
   I think it would have come up. Any way, God Bless.....................................Rick
================================================================
From: Logbearer@aol.com

Symmetor@aol.com wrote:

<<Indeed, but to be submissive only to your own men, who, presumably would
not allow other men to subject you.>>
Huh??? I don't have any men...
Amy
==================================================================
From: "Sohm Ving" <ving3@hotmail.com>
>
> I am about to post the "Where Women Belong" onelist discussion on page.

From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>
If you're referring to our discussion last week, you must call it the
"debate of the brothers"; if you'll notice - only Carol stuck in a word.
The rest of the sisters let us live in our la la land.

From: "Sohm Ving" <ving3@hotmail.com>

Why are you soooo sure the sisters were upset, or ignoring etc..
I must read this again. I still 1)don't see the great offense and 2) don't
see how the Gene Edwards chapters which , by the way still seem a little
disguised, help or helped the debate. I don't know. Let me get back to ya.

mm
=======================================================================
Read Esther! Good thing she spoke up!!..
Carol
==========================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>>

From: "Sohm Ving" <ving3@hotmail.com>>
> Why are you soooo sure the sisters were upset, or ignoring etc..
> I must read this again. I still 1)don't see the great offense and
That's cause you were plodding along like a brother.
Believe me, it's there. (Notice the absence of the sisters
during this time as they held back in stunned silence at us morons.IMHO)
> 2) don't
> see how the Gene Edwards chapters which , by the way still seem a little
> disguised, help or helped the debate

A new mindset to replace the old.
==================================================================
From: JFeath4301@aol.com
Neil, can you please explain this in lay terms. i think you made a good
point, i just don't know.
thanks
feathers
=============================================
Feathers!
You didn't include the message to which you were responding, so I don't
know which one you are asking about. Tell me which message, and I will try my
hand again at converting it into all one-syllable words. (Hahah! I love the
challenge). - Neil
======================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

Logbearer@aol.com writes:
<< Huh??? I don't have any men...
Amy >>

No father? No husband? No brothers? No relatives? No spiritual brothers?
You are exposed, then, but God would not have exposed you. Did you despise
your own men? That is the American way now, I know. - Neil
======================================================================
From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>

Confusion of Roles

Neil,You hit a very key point here. A lot of the seeming disputes we have about
scripture is, I suspect , colored greatly by >" Stewart's deliberate turning
of things upside down (in the name of > 'motivation')", as you so aptly coined it. And it seems like some of us
are still married to Stewart's understanding and indoctrination of false
teaching. We all needed to not only leave cobu but divorce ourselves from
ST's false teaching. It is a form of bondage and it gives us a shallow view
and little respect and little trust in the inerrancy of God's Word. To put
it in todays terms, Stewart did his best to rape God's Word and make it
serve him for his glory and not for God's.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scripture,
Steve Saxton
========================================================
From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com>

>Again I appeal to you to quit attacking God's Word because there are things
>in it you don't fully understand.
Dear Steve,
I assume you would agree (maybe I shouldn't) that there are still a few things
in God's word that you don't understand? So then, is any position you take,which
might have a degree of "errancy" an attack on God"s word and should I now exhort
you to stop that attack. At least until such time as you agree with me and then
obviously understand it?
>> > The law of the Lord, the commandments of the Lord, the word. May we learn to love>it
>> > like that. Remember, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus
>said he>> > loves me who keeps my word.
I just can't find any fault with this. Let no man any longer teach his brother
saying know the Lord for they shall all know Him from the least of them to the
greatest.
>> Let's keep His word and show kindness to the "least of these my brethren".
This debate has been going on for two-thousand years and shows no sign of being
resolved, so I think I would like to stick with the two "love" commandments and
let God take care of the rest.

===========================================================================
excuse me, I guess my last comment on this issue is being ignored.... Esther!! Read it and you decide if she would have been better to shut up or to speak up!
Carol
========================================================================
Hey Carol,In this case I think you need to say EXCUSE ME !
Love.......................Rick
==============================================

From: Symmetor@aol.com

sksaxton@sg23.com writes:
<< To put it in todays terms, Stewart did his best to rape God's Word and make it
serve him for his glory and not for God's. >>
Dear Steve:
I really think that your words are way too strong and excessive for what
Stewart was about. There is a certain deliberate violence about 'rape' that
is inapplicable in Stewart's case, I think. None of us was old and wise
enough to check him when his power over us was on the rise, and none of us
was ready to call him on the things which he imagined that he saw in
Scripture to justify what he did to us 'in the name of motivation'. He has
his reward for having immeasurably insulted us all. - Neil
======================================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

cstutts@kih.net
writes:<< excuse me, I guess my last comment on this issue is being ignored....
Esther!! Read it and you decide if she would have been better to shut up or
to speak up!
Carol >>
     She took her life in her hands to speak up about a life-and-death
matter. Does that justify all 'speaking up' that women would care to do?
                    - Neil
==============================================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
Carol,
It was better that Esther spoke up, and I thank God she did. She serves
as a great example of courage and faith for me and for all of us.Everyone,
In this ongoing and spirited discussion, it seems that we might be
forgetting our points of agreement and disagreement. A little
clarification might be in order here. I've read all the posts and, unless
I'm mistaken, the following are true:Points of Agreement
-Our sisters are needed and vital for the work of the ministry; no one is
saying that they are not needed
-This includes the ministry of teaching, evangelism, and many others
-No one is saying that women should be silent in the church (1
Corinthians 14:34-35 is not relevant to the discussion, and I have not
quoted those verses in any of my posts)
-No one is saying that women are in any way inferior to men
-A problem in many churches today is that brothers do not provide
Christlike leadership Points of Disagreement
-Whether or not God permits sisters to serve as elders/pastors (with all
due respect to Gene Edwards' arguments, may we set those aside for just
the moment?). God has spoken in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and we ought not to
ignore Him. In fact, I propose that the discussion center on what God has
said and why and whether or not what He said there and then applies here and now.
-How to interpret the Scriptures, including the above
-Whether or not what we have in the 66 books of the Bible is Scriptural
and authoritative. This is a more recent discussion and surfaces a very
fundamental issue that perhaps underlies the issue at hand. If Paul's
letters are not scriptural and authoritative, then we can ignore what he
said in 1 Timothy. If they are, then let's listen for God's voice. In Christ,
Bob San Pascual
=======================================================================
From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com>
>>>>> She took her life in her hands to speak up about a life-and-death>matter.>
>                    - Neil

So in SOME cases it IS OK?OUCH a chink in the armor.

>>>>>Does that justify all 'speaking up' that women would care to do?

No more dear brother than it
would justify any thoughtless speaking up that any brother
might care to indulge in for self-agrandizement(I think I
just butchered the spelling on that) or any other less than noble motivation.
Rick
============================================================
Dear brother Mark,

You seem to be slightly hostile about this issue.
Perhaps I'm overmatched in that department here.
I am surprised at the accusation here. Is this an attempt to label and
discredit here? reminiscent of COBU, anyways that’s my impression… You make
an accusation, and the don't back it up, this ain't COBU. If you could back
it up, and cite what was said that bothered you and why, that would be more
honest.

Again I didn't say any of this or make rules, nor do I know everything about
women. I sure don't know what brought this on.

Earlier in this discussion, when the bibles were opened, you had no answers
then, so you join in on the posturing and labeling game to. I saw your
post as emotionally charged trying to incite something which is unhealthy,
as a way to get support. (I have to realize I must take a few hits for
being what I am, that comes with the territory. I will learn how to word
things better as time goes on.) I don’t need such support… So what I see
is an attempt to have christianity without the Word of God. Jesus is the
Word made flesh. So you want a christianity without Jesus. “We will not
have this man rule over us”. You’d rather have culture, (cult – ure).

Speaking of mindset, the liberal mindset is to see something wrong with you
for seeing something wrong with them. If you are posturing as a moderate,
Rick, your MO gives you away as the same as any other liberal. This reminds
me of the hearings for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. When a republican
senator would say something, the democrats would jump up like a bunch of
women and get all emotional, shouting and name calling to protect their
falling idol. A feminine influence is necessary, but not from the males.

As for the making of rules concerning women that you mentioned, I didn’t
make them, so is your innuendo towards Paul also? Paul didn’t get his
gospel or his mindset from Aristotle, Tom, or from any other man. Again,
this is not arguing honestly, but emotion overriding conscience and common
sense. If you were offended at something I said before, just be honest and
point that out in a calm and sensible manner instead of being emotionally
charged. I don’t appreciate having words put out of my mouth either, I get
into enough trouble for my own words.

You seem to have this problem with the rules, the only rules cited were
those of Paul. I can't help you there. You seem to want to mix it up,
where does this spiritual violence and hatred come from? It was downloaded
from somewhere, I don't see this in Tom's posts. Perhaps I am misreading
your post, but thats what I sense.

It's unclear to me whether you still believe in the Bible, too much is being
left vague.
Mark

====================================
Dear Mark,I have a sometimes poorly understood sense of humor. I often use
it (or attempt to use it as the case may be) to respond to things that
have the potential to get heated. Call it "my gift" if you will.
I have a satirical bent, a fascination with Ionesceau (theatre of the
absurd) and truth be told I sometimes just like to stir things up
a little to see how well someone can support their argument.
I appreciate all the divergent views here on the list.It is quite
unlikely that any of us (given our background) are likely to roll
over in debate. I think we always have room to grow and learn
from each other and broaden our viewpoints. Thanks for providing
opportunity towards that end.
Rick
===========================================================
From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com>>>> >
>>>>>>From: "Mark Loftus" <mloftus955@hotmail.com>>> >
>>>>>>As far as living in la la land, you can speak for yourself on that.>>
>>>Dear brother Mark,>>>>>You seem to be slightly hostile about this issue.>>
>>>>>>Perhaps I'm overmatched in that department here.
>>>>>>I am surprised at the accusation here
Honestly Mark,"slightly hostile" isn't much of an accusation.It was the
impression I got from the general tenor of your post. It seemed defensive.
>>>>>>Is this an attempt to label and
>>>>>>>discredit here? reminiscent of COBU, anyways that’s my impression… You
make
>>>>>>>an accusation, and the don't back it up, this ain't COBU. If you could
back
>>>>>>>it up, and cite what was said that bothered you and why, that would be
more>>>>>>>>honest.
Again, see above. BTW...I realize from your more recent post that you now have a
better sense of where I was coming from.
>>>>>>>> so you join in on the _posturing and labeling game I saw your
>>>>>>>>post as emotionally charged trying to incite something which is
unhealthy,>>>>>>>>>as a way to get support. … So what I see
>>>>>>>>>is an attempt to have christianity without the Word of God.
>>>>>>>>>>You’d rather have culture, (cult – ure).
WOW, talk about your posturing and labeling and ......Can you say Hostility????
>>>>>>>>>>the democrats would jump up like a bunch of
>>>>>>>>>>women and get all emotional, shouting and name calling to protect their
>>>>>>>>>>>falling idol. A feminine influence is necessary, but not from the
males.Mark, you just don't seem to have a high regard for women here...
and I quote, "like a bunch of women..." If shouting and name-calling is
what you mean by a necessary feminine influence...I don't want it in church
either.
I ain't sayin' you is one, but I ain't sayin you ain't either....I don't know
you well enough, but dem's dat wants to keeps der' women folk frilly and
silly are IMHO objectifying women and relegating them as a class to no
more than something that exists for the titillation of men. I don't buy it.
>>>>>>>>As for the making of rules concerning women that you mentioned, I didn’t
>>>>>>>>make them, so is your innuendo towards Paul also?
I speak to the application and preoccupation of said rules in ways that they may
not have been meant intended by either the Author or the scribe.. >>>>>>> Again,
>>>>>>>>>this is not arguing honestly, but emotion overriding conscience and
common>>>>>>>>>>sense. If you were offended at something I said before, just be
honest and
>>>>>>>>>>point that out in a calm and sensible manner instead of being
emotionally>>>>>>>>>>charged................HUH??????..............
>>>>>>>>>I don’t appreciate having words put out of my mouth either, I get
>>>>>>>>>>into enough trouble for my own words.
I can see why.(Kidding, Mark, ha-ha :-) )
>>>>>>>>>>You seem to want to mix it up,
>>>>>>>>>>where does this spiritual violence and hatred come from?
Again, WOW!!!!!!......and I quote you, "If you were offended.....just be honest
.....instead of emotionally charged."
>>>>>>>>>>It's unclear to me whether you still believe in the Bible, too much is
being>>>>>>>>>>left vague.>>>>>>>>>>>Mark>
One last time I will refer to the passage above where you say, "this ain't
COBU....etc,...."I didn't know that I had to prove to you that I believe in the
Bible.....
Do I get coded if I answer correctly.....Now that my friend is "reminiscent of
COBU"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mark, in all seriousness don't get too emotionally wrapped up in responses and
posts.
One of the things that most of us have come to realize is......you can't see the
facial expressions or hear the tone of voice of a post so you don't get all the
inference. Don't let that stop you (as if it might)as you get used to the general
tone of different folks and they you a sense develops.
================================================================================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>

There are two times when a man doesn't understand a woman-before marriage
and after marriage.
One teen-age boy to another: "My Dad had a long talk with me about girls
last night. He doesn't know anything about them, either."

Bob San Pascual
=================================================================
Carol Stutts wrote:
excuse me, I guess my last comment on this issue is being ignored.... Esther!! Read it and you decide if she would have been better to shut up or to speak up!
Carol

Who cares about your suggestion? We're buttressing our arguments.
==================================================================
Get that toungue out of your cheek Tom.You're killin me.
BTW...Could someone kinda report where we stand on this issue
right now...not sisters...[(-:Just kidding :-)]
===================================================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>>

From: Logbearer@aol.com>
> Also consider in regards to having authority over men (1Tim 2:11-12) that
> spiritual maturity, or coming of age, to manhood, is not a chronological

I'll bet (I'm guessing) Timothy needed some words from a higher up about the
older women who wanted to perhaps mother Timothy - as in lines with
"let no one despise your youth". Timothy was called, chosen, or
whatever - they had laid hands on him. Maybe some women who were
older thought they were wiser (and they may have been).
But Timothy was an itinerant worker,
========================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>>

From: Symmetor@aol.com>
> Stewart's deliberate turning of things upside down (in the name of
> 'motivation'), not only permitting but encouraging women to speak in church,
> and not only that but requiring brothers who would speak to sit down in
> deference to them, was the abomination for which I decided that I could
> stomach neither him nor his experiment any longer.
I heard someone say that before - that Stewart being "scientific" and all that -
- that they felt like they were simply part of his "experiment".
I think he loved to watch the effect of "spiritual physics" on us.
Like putting Donald alone in a room and telling him not to touch the pencil
and bursting in the room every now and then without notice to catch the
"disobedient" boy.
As for encouraging women to speak - we could use that in the right circumstances.
Stewart had his own set of "right" circumstances. They were right for him.
He encouraged the women to speak because he knew he had them and they
would speak the party line - and who's going to fight a woman?
(the spiritual physics at work there...)
I remember one time we were "helping" Ron Tyska. I was sitting near Ron
with a smile from ear to ear. Stewart said "Tom!?" For me to answer the
question that had just been said as Ron sat there hanging his head as we
all did under these situations.So I answered with the "party line" at the time:
"Ron, why don't you come out of your cave?!"
(The story then was, the brothers were hiding in their caves - -
- and why not, that's what David had to do to protect himself from Saul -
- but let's not get into that now...)
> The ground that he
> violently provided is the ground upon which my legal wife continues to flout
> my authority to this day, so that she not only continues with him against me
> in the name of 'the will of God', but already has safely deposited two of my
> daughters with him to be treated to the titillation of his upside down world.
I wish I had an answer for this. What is the best way to show my love?Prayer?
Tom
==============================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>>

From: lori <lledonne@ncx.com>
> Let me give you my take on Jesus with
> Martha and Mary. Martha was in the kitchen taking care of some
> traditionally woman-type chores. Mary sat at His feet listening to His
> teaching. Jesus didn't say, '"Martha, get in here and listen to me." And
> He likewise didn't tell Mary to get out to the kitchen and get to work,
> make him some dinner. When Martha raised the issue, Jesus told her what was
> better, but He let them choose and He didn't condemn either's choice.

But look who WAS into condemning - Martha. Did Jesus say, "I'm hungry"
and command Martha to prepare something? But there she was off and
busy doing "God's work" - if you would ask her. And what are her words
"Lord, don't you care?!" She is already out of the mind of Christ doubting Him
- she's so out of touch doing her own thing.
And then she orders Jesus around and tells him what He should do in
His kingdom "Tell her to help me".
Get lost Martha - well, you already are, but don't drag Mary down
just because she has chosen the better portion.
Put your jealousy and "busywork" aside. Only one thing is needful and
Mary's got it. Siddown and shaddup.
And listen to Jesus. You sit around those feet and then maybe your
feet will lead you into better pastures.
Tom
=============================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>>=

> Only one thing is needful and> Mary's got it. Siddown and shaddup.

you do realize, I'm "talking to Martha" at this point.
==========================================
From: lori <lledonne@ncx.com>
**You're** talking to Martha? I thought you were paraphrasing Jesus'
words. But I miss the "sit down and shut up" part in my translation. I
think He was quite aware that none of us was perfect. I think you're
looking at Martha one-sidedly. She is also the one who ran to meet Him
when Lazarus died and confessed, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the
Christ, the Son of God, He who is coming into the world." Mary chose the
better portion, but does that mean that what Martha was doing was bad?
Her view and priorities were out of line and He *gently* set her straight.
It says, "Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus..."
===========================================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
The onelist is jumping today! I guess we all had too much turkey
yesterday and can't get up to go shopping!To Mike and everyone else,
On the subject of our sisters serving as elders/pastors, there are two
main views I uncovered during my research. (If there are others, I'm open
to hearing those as well.) For lack of better terms, we may call one
"traditional" and the second "progressive." The traditional view espouses
that our sisters are indeed called and gifted for ministry. God, however,
chose to limit elders/pastors as the responsibility of godly men (see
qualifications in 1 Timothy and Titus). The progressive view states that
God calls some sisters to serve in any and every ministry that brothers
are engaged in, including that of elders/pastors.
How can we as members of Christ's church solve the issue? In the
introduction to my paper on 1 Timothy 2:11-15, I wrote:
One of the most hotly debated issues in American churches today is the
role of women in ministry. One of the key points of this paper concerns
the issue of whether or not women should function as elders and pastors
in the church. While there are many arguments for and against it, for
evangelicals, the matter should be settled not by tradition or societal
norms, but by what God’s Word says about the issue. One important passage
that must be dealt with is 1 Tim. 2:11-15. How one interprets this
passage should help the evangelical person settle the matter of whether
or not women may serve as elders and pastors. Since this issue affects
not only females, but also males, it is imperative that it be exegeted
carefully and prayerfully.
I would love to hear everyone else's interpretation of this passage, and
I promise to stay open-minded. :-)
In Christ,
Bob San Pascual
====================================================================
From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com

AC 2:18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
This is a thus sayeth the Lord.

So then,
I think what we got here is an oversimplification of what
Paul meant about women being silent in the church.
I gotta go before the wife beats me again. OUCH :-)
=======================================================
Once again, no one I know of on this onelist is saying that women should
be silent. No one on the "traditional" side of the debate is quoting the
Scriptures (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) that you are alluding to.
As far as prophesying, that is not the same as serving as an
elder/pastor. Here again is a Scripture that was quoted previously: "It
was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be
evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers" (Ephesians 4:11). Not
all prophets were pastors and not all pastors were prophets, though I'm
sure there were some who were both.
The issue is not: "Does God call our sisters to prophesy, evangelize,
teach, speak in church, etc." The issue is, "Does God call our sisters to
serve as elders/pastors or did God say that role is for brothers only?"
To answer this question, I propose we prayerfully and humbly interpret 1
Timothy 2:11-15 and then try to apply our interpretation to our times.
In Christ,
Bob San Pascual
=======================================================
From: lori <lledonne@ncx.com>Bob,
I re-read I Timothy and what is written there seems clear. The only thing
that came to mind, though I'm not taking this position---just bringing it
up for discussion---is that in I Cor 7:12, remember how Paul at one point
says, "To the rest, *I * say, not the Lord..."? The paragraph in I Tim
2:8, begins with "*I * desire.." and then at verse 12, "*I * permit.." But
then Paul also said at the end of I Cor 7, "And I think that I have the
Spirit of God." My point being that it seems like some things he said
wisely but maybe of his own accord, and other things were commands of the
Lord. But then they're all contained in the Bible. Like Mike and Chris
pointed out, is it all God's word? Or is it all that He left us to
instruct us? I asked someone one time about all Job's friends' words---was
there any wisdom in their words or was it all wrong? Is it rather
instruction on how *not* to judge others, how *not* to address others,
since at the end of the book, God says Job spoke rightly, but his friendsdidn't.
======================================================
I didn't realize this until I heard it in a sermon once on this chapter
just about a year ago, but it makes sense to me: The difference between
the "The Lord says" and the "I say" verses in 1 Corinthians 7 is that
"The Lord says" parts are quotations from Jesus and the "I say" parts are not.
But whether or not Paul was quoting Christ, he was an apostle
commissioned by Christ. He was one of Christ's representatives, an
official ambassador, if you will. Acts 22:10 recounts his commissioning:
"'What shall I do, Lord?' I asked. " `Get up,' the Lord said, `and go
into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to
do.' When Paul wrote the letters we have today, I believe he wrote with
the full authority of the King of Kings as he was inspired by the Holy
Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16). His authority was attacked then and that is why
in so many of his letters he reiterated his calling by the Lord to be an
apostle (all throughout Galatians, for example, but also 1 and 2
Corinthians and others).
But then they're all contained in the Bible. Like Mike and> Chris
> pointed out, is it all God's word? Or is it all that He left us to
> instruct us?
I think there are three important issues you, Mike, Chris, and others
have brought up:
1) The canon of Scripture: How did we get the Bible? Who decided what
should be in the Bible and on what grounds?
2) The interpretation of Scripture: How should we interpret Scripture?
Can we understand it?
3) The authority of Scripture: Are we obligated to obey what is in the Bible?
On 1), I'm of the opinion that the Holy Spirit watched over this process
as God's people recognized what was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I
realize that Catholics recognize other books as inspired that Protestants
don't. I haven't read all of those books, known as the Apocrypha, just
some. I've read about the canonization process, but I don't think I'm
informed enough to spell it out. In the final analysis, I'm going by
faith that what the early church decided by around 400 A.D. was led by
the Spirit.
On 2), I believe that Scripture can be understood because God wants to
communicate with us and He chose to do so primarily through the avenue of
human literature. (I do believe He communicates to us through other
means, but I think Scripture is the primary means.) Because there are
"rules" for writing certain styles of literature, there are also "rules"
for interpreting them. It's not an easy process, but I think it's well
worth it to hear what our heavenly Father is saying to us today.
On 3), I think that the Bible is authoritative. I'm not given the freedom
to pick and choose what I want to obey, although in practice I do that
more than I want to admit. Nevertheless, I trust that what's in the 66
books are for my good, although I don't understand all of it. When I was
young, I didn't understand why my parents gave me a curfew. Now I know
and I realize that it was for my good that they did. In heaven, we will
understand fully. I asked someone one time about all Job's friends'> words---was
> there any wisdom in their words or was it all wrong? Is it rather
> instruction on how *not* to judge others, how *not* to address> others,
> since at the end of the book, God says Job spoke rightly, but his> friends
> didn't.
I've read Job several times but I've never really studied it. I do think
you're right that the inspired author of Job (we don't know who that was)
used the friends of Job to instruct us how not to be when we have a
friend who is suffering. They may have said some true things mixed in
with some false, but overall their approach to Job was wrong. They should
not have assumed that the reason Job was suffering was a result of sin on
his part, as was the prevailing notion in that time (compare John 9:1-2).
Good communicating with you, Lori!
Bob
==========================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

cstutts@kih.net
writes:<< and by the way Neil... what on earth do dogs have to do with Women
speaking? You really are out in left field. Perhaps you are driving your
wife and children to Stewart, maybe if you lightened up a bit and were a bit
less haughty they would be more inclined to spend their time with you rather
than the cult. Guess you are making that cult look pretty good to them. >>
     What apprehension! What subtlety! What spiritual cognizance! Carol, I
was using the expression 'the dogs' as it is used in the Holy Scriptures,
with reference to the pursuit of sexual perversion. And if you don't see the
progression from the indulgence of brassy loudness like yours to the
indulgence of the far end of indiscretion, it is because you have dwelt for a
long time in it, and have had no one to point out to you that it is BRASSY
LOUDNESS unbecoming a Christian woman!
     And, for the record, concerning those members of my family whom I
repeatedly solemnly warned not to cross their husband and father in the name
of God's supposed will, serious physical problems are beginning to overtake
them all, maladies which I would have spared them, and which God might have
spared them except for their intransigence and spite. Don't be too quick to
celebrate some supposed desperate need of theirs to get away from me. Long
ago I saved them all from the ghetto, the sleeplessness, the garbage, the
rats, the concrete jungle, the 'nursery', the steamrolling 'fellowship', the
hollowness, the forced smiles, the terror, the self-hatred, the tentativeness
of life in the cobu. The cobu re-inserted itself here through my wife, Carol,
who is easy prey to fear-mongering. The home that I had provided was relaxed,
safe, comfortable to all my children, but she imposed like a blanket her
cobu-agitated anxiety, insecurity, and discomfort until her unrest became
their unrest. But if you would implicate me for their treachery, why not
rather come right out and accuse me? I am ready to be tried. Let's hear it!
You bring your brassy loudmouthed pushy woman indictments out, and I will
take the stand in my own defense. And let others advocate one way or the
other. All can be lawyers, judges and juries. Perhaps we might all learn
something!                      - Neil
======================================================
From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com

Really though Neil, you set yourself as one who understands
the deeper mysteries of God's word and you seem to completely
over-react to Carol's response. I find it ludicrous to suggest
that she will be participating in orgies and pagan feasts
because she is hot headed and reactionary. This is another
example of what I was trying to illustrate. The Jesus that
Carol brings to someone else may be the only one they can receive
at some point. You might go to that person like a clanging cymbal.
Indictments......nah, I don't think so. It is for you to judge
yourself and you seem to be OK with where you are at...Works for
me ...You speak of "COBU" dripping with venom and yet I find you
to be the one right now who is attempting to use force and
intimidation to make your points......I don't however ask you
to change...because there might be someone coming along who
needs to hear Neil's unique story in order that he might connect with
Jesus...and also because God made you with your particular
convictions......He just didn't seem to convince the rest of us
to agree with you all that much..I don't know why????????????
To venture a guess here though......I bet you find it pretty tough
to have long term fellowship with people....Not many seem to able
to accept your correction.......Am I close????????
=====================================================
From: JFeath4301@aol.comneil
as soon as i figure out which one i will let you know but pretty much
everything you say, i get lost on but hopefully i will find it it had
to do with this women issue thing
feathers
================================================
From: Logbearer@aol.com

Symmetor@aol.com wrote:
<<No father? No husband? No brothers? No relatives? No spiritual brothers?
You are exposed, then, but God would not have exposed you. Did you despise
your own men? That is the American way now, I know>>
Touche', Sir Pendry... No husband, no male relatives who are Christians, and
spiritual brothers who are not concerned with whether or not I am exposed,
but whether or not they can get a date... I do find this rather
despicable... That's why the pastoral authority I fall under is within the
structure of the Body rather than through individual men.
In Christ, Amy
=========================================================
Sister Lori,
Wow you really blew me away with that one! At first glance I don't believe I've ever read that before. (There is your partial answer Macman, I don't know everything after all.)
I think I will seek some Godly counsel on this one, as in Mathew Henry's Commentary. I have found him to be quite reliable and well tested by time. I will get back to you on this.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
==================================================
Brother Ray,
I'm not sure if you did but if so I forgive you. You know brother, the great thing about all of this lively discussion is that one day when we are all with the Lord Jesus in our perfect bodies and really in our right minds, fully and completely, we will understand all these things perfectly. And the other great thing about these lively discussions is that we really are looking for His soon return-and we won't be disappointed.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
==================================================
Rick,I reread the posts and I have to admit I was mistaken and I apologize. It
does seem that Neil was alluding to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. This is not a
knock on Neil, but I think those Scriptures have to do with order in the
worship services. I don't think Paul was saying there that women may not
pray or prophesy since he assumed that they were already doing that in
chapter 7, and he was fine with that.
In my opinion, the command there to be silent had to do with wives
talking to their husbands during a worship service while perhaps the
speaker was giving his message. He considered that disorderly. The reason
he said women should be silent is because they were not being orderly.
And I believe this is why Paul summed up this section of his letter by
writing, "But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way" (1
Cor. 14:40).> >> >The issue is not: "Does God call our sisters to prophesy,
> evangelize,> >teach, speak in church, etc." The issue is, "Does God call our
> sisters to> >serve as elders/pastors or did God say that role is for brothers
> only?"> >To answer this question, I propose we prayerfully and humbly
> interpret 1> >Timothy 2:11-15 and then try to apply our interpretation to our
> times.>> I agree with this for a lot of reasons except when there aren't
> better> alternatives. Can happen. There is always something about these hard
> and> fast inflexible rules that grates at me. I can easily find something
> wrong> with everyone/anyone here with a scriptural basis (as could most lf
> us).> There is often a best solution, an OK solution, and a not very good> but
> will have to do solution that applies to every situation and which> one
> we pick is dependent on a lot of circunstances.>
I agree with you that if the best is not possible, we should try what's
good. I think this is exactly what happened in the case of the prophetess
Deborah and Barak in Judges 4. Deborah delivered a prophecy of victory to
Barak, a military leader, but he did not take the lead as he should have:
JDG 4:8 Barak said to her, "If you go with me, I will go; but if you
don't go with me, I won't go." JDG 4:9 "Very well," Deborah said, "I will
go with you. But because of the way you are going about this, the honor
will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman."
Deborah is another great example of a woman of wisdom, courage, and
faith. I thank God for her example!
In Christ,
Bob San Pascual
=============================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

JFeath4301@aol.com writes:<< neil
as soon as i figure out which one i will let you know but pretty much
everything you say, i get lost on but hopefully i will find it it had
to do with this women issue thing feathers >>

Feathers! I'll be watching and waiting. Take your time.
- Neil
===============================================
The issue is not: "Does God call our sisters to prophesy, evangelize,
teach, speak in church, etc." The issue is, "Does God call our sisters to
serve as elders/pastors or did God say that role is for brothers only?"
To answer this question, I propose we prayerfully and humbly interpret 1
Timothy 2:11-15 and then try to apply our interpretation to our times.

In Christ,
Bob San Pascual

I know what I want to say, but it is better left unsaid. Neil said it best.
The Spirit reveals the truth, and the Spirit reveals the scripture. I for
one will back off this issue, because I am now finding a war within
myself as to the validity of Paul's letters as scripture and or the
validity of my own freedom to think they are (not) + -.

I argue with myself on one hand that they are as Tom (ML) suggests,
but on the other hand I consider the prophets of old and their works that
may not have been ordered of God to be written down, yet I accept their
works. I also view Paul as was a true prophet and apostle of God and there
for a Holy man of God led of the Holy Ghost. If I then say he was not such
then surly God is not within me, and I cannot bare that thought, because I
know he lives in me and I desire no other life than to live for Him.

No man nor woman can now convince me of either. I'll wait for His answer,
but either way I remain to love and adore only He that is worthy, and it makes
me no less His child and servant. I am therefor no mush nor marshmallow,
but the servant of the most High Holy God.

In Jesus' Holy Wonderful Name

Raynard
=========================================================
and by the way Neil... what on earth do dogs have to do with Women speaking? You really are out in left field.
Perhaps you are driving your wife and children to Stewart, maybe if you lightened up a bit and were a bit less
haughty they would be more inclined to spend their time with you rather than the cult. Guess you are making that
cult look pretty good to them.

Come on now sis that was a bit low wasn't it, and most of us knew he was
referring to those of us in agreement/disagreement over a certain issue.
===============================================================
Touche', Sir Pendry... No husband, no male relatives who are Christians,and
spiritual brothers who are not concerned with whether or not I am exposed,
but whether or not they can get a date... I do find this rather
despicable... That's why the pastoral authority I fall under is within the
structure of the Body rather than through individual men.
In Christ, Amy >>
Just as I thought; a round contempt for men because no one of them has
been the 'right' man in particular. That's why 'the pastoral authority' you
'fall under' is the one that affords you the most cover in your contempt for
the natural authority of the men who love you. And don't tell me that no man
loves you; if no man loves you it is because you have disdained even to be
lovable. How 'despicable' would it be if a particular Christian man who bore
some promise of being the 'right' man should ask you for a 'date'? Eventually
women will find themselves either supervised by the men who love them or
forced and degraded by the men who despise them. Fight this natural fact of
your life if you will, but in the long run it will get you; you won't get it.
Neil
================================================================
You know what else brother. The next reunion I am gonna be there.
I was gonna hitch hike, kids and all, but I chickened out, old age seeped
in methinks hawhaw. I used to hitch everywhere. Next time I will be there
rain or shine, kids or nay. There are so many of you I have never met,
and wished I had.

IJN

Ray
===================================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>>

From: lori <lledonne@ncx.com>>>
> It says, "Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus..."

He called Judas "friend."
=========================================================
Dear Steve:
The denominations are all clandestinely condemning one another for
'preaching another gospel'. You could change my mind, I suppose, if you would
state your case in detail. But your description of his 'raping' the Word to
get power over us seems around the bend to me. Maybe he got that wild on
occasion, I don't know. But remember, I left at the end of 1978, and my up
close and personal knowledge of Stewart's teaching ends there. (Except for
big meetings in the early 80's when he would sit there for hours with nothing
at all to teach). I have come to realize that things happened in the church
in the 80's which were even worse than the things that made me sick in the70's.
- Neil
===============================================================
Neil said: Eventually
women will find themselves either supervised by the men who love them or
forced and degraded by the men who despise them.

Carol said: Say what??!! Supervised by men?? Give me a break!! I've been married for almost
12 years and I can promise you that I am hardly SUPERVISED by the men who love me. Geez.
Neil this is the way you think??? This is your idea of a Christian Man?? Sounds more like a bully to me.
=================================================================

As for women being leaders, elders, pastors, He has always called the
male gender for certain tasks. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David,
Enoch, Noah, Joshua, Samuel, the many prophets (all male), Joseph,
Jesus, 12 apostles (all male), Paul, John, and on and on. We refer to
God in the male gender as He, Him, His, God created man and later
created a Help meet woman. God has always called men (males) for
leadership roles, but has also called women for specific tasks. Our
brother noted that God has a certain order to follow, and I must now
agree that this is correct. I thought it was rather appealing, the words
brother Tom quoted and liked it and thought this is rather modern
thinking, not that it was at all of God - I therefore repent of it before
you all "My Peers". Nothing to mean brother Tom has erred, but rather
that I have erred.

I still know that God blesses us male and female alike with the same
anointing, and even the same anointing that he blesses apostles, pastors,
elders, teachers, helpers, singers, even exboos. Bless His Holy Name.
Praise the Lord that God is NOT a man. Ah God is not a woman either
but not trying to be chauvinistic in the slightest.

===============================================================
My server went down last night, so my messages couldn't be sent.
But I would like to know - Eph 4:11 a word got translated as
"pastors". No one has shown me the list of "pastor" verses in the Bible.
Are there any verses about "brother" or ekklesia that would show by
the "unconscious" language what was on their minds and what was going on.
============================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>I think Bob San broke the code.
The women should keep silent instead of yelling across
the way during the gathering. All things should be done
decently and in order. End of story. It's not that they
"shouldn't speak" per se at all. It's just that some had
questions and had to ask right away. I can understand
that. If I have a thought, and don't write it down - no
matter how important that thought was at the time and I
thought to myself "surely I'll remember that!" - if I
don't write it down that second - quite often it's gone!
So the women probably didn't have their note pads with
them. Matter of fact, and this is why the matrix and the
times of the day are so important. Over 90% of the people
back then COULD NOT READ. Even fewer people could write.
Those were the times. If you needed to write a letter,
you hired a writer to write it. I guess you then had to
hire a courier or find someone doing business in that
direction who would take it to that area and the recipient
of the letter, would over %90 of the time have to hire
someone to read it to them. Paul read and wrote. Yes, he
was extremely well educated and he counted it all as loss
when compared to knowing Christ Jesus. And Jesus used
Paul's talents for writing. Romans is a well thought out
discussion. It sure seems that way - though some of it is
beyond us today. Probably made perfect sense to those
back then who read it while in that matrix.
Remember - Jesus used "Son of Man" because of that book
of Enoch everyone was reading. ( I know this may be old hat
to some people, but I never knew it till someone told me
and there may be others in that same boat)They knew perfectly well
from the book of Enoch that the "Son of Man" was the
Son of God. Some people still wonder today, "Why did He
say that?" To communicate in His matrix. We need the
documents and the history to catch up to those words -
otherwise they could be lost to us - or we'll make up some
crazy teaching around it and justify it...
But I digress, a little. That sounds good to me - them not
yelling across the way - that's all. It is shameful for a
woman to be yelling to her husband interrupting the proceedings.
Silence at the proper time - not put on a muzzle at the
door for the whole "service."
Jiminy cricket. Some people take the Bible so - I don't
know what to call it. To take a sentence about demanding
women be silent and thinking that means in church gatherings
today - is a stretch. And it's a shame that met like these
formal type gatherings it seems like.
Some good books that'll open your eyes. Maybe I shouldn't
say they'll open your eyes. What they'll do is tell you
things you already know, it's just that no one has told
you that you know it. Read and see:When The Church Was Young by Ernest Loosley
Going to Church in the First Century by Robert Banks another thought
God approaches our minds by receding from them.
We can never fully know Him if we think of Him as an
object of capture to be fenced in by the enclosure
of our own ideas. We know him better after our minds have let Him go.
Thomas Mertona paradoxThe Bible is full of paradoxes.the least is the greatest
he who waters is watered if you say you're blind - you'll see
the humble are exalted and there's definitely more subtle ones I cannot think
of right now.A paradox is two truths existing at once that stop and
make you think. They can appear to be going in two
opposite directions. How to put the together?
Some people need clearly definable religion and security system.
Many choose one answer or the other and become one sided.
We're seated with Christ in heavenly places and Christ
dwells in you. Which is it?Both at the same time.As for Paul.
Should you put his writing in their chronological order
a story emerges. For another time.
But how about Romans? That's why it was put first -
the most "explanatory" about the Christian faith there is.
And I think this is so because Paul did not have a chance
to visit those that he sent to Rome to start there church
there and therefore that explanatory letter.
Paul's writings are indeed inspired to the utmost. But he
is still a man talking and sharing - and that's what's so
great. He despaired of life itself. He had a thorn that
caused him to boast of weaknesses. He shared those things.
He wasn't Superman, but he definitely had a revelation.
And even near the end - he said that the thing he wanted
to know was Christ - not that he had made it his own. It's an ongoing thing.
The last point that I would like to bring out about Paul's
great letters are that they always start out with the
believer's standing in Christ. Even the crazy Corinthians
he starts out by calling them faithful or whatever it is
he says. All the letters start out with that - and then end
with the "this it what it will look like". People take
the end verses and say "you must do this and this and this"
and then you're a Christian. No. We don't follow laws and
rules and outward stuff. An atheist could conceivably "stop
sinning". Does that make him holy? Holiness is not the
absence of sin - but the presence of God. First you are
a Christian - and then we see the outworking of that.- you living holy behavior.
As far as it depends upon you.
=================================================================

11: And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
12: to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ

That's all I can find anyway, one verse with the word "pastors".

Ray
==================================================
You've got me thinking and studying now -- thanks!
The word "pastor" in Eph. 4:11 is the Greek word "poimen." The noun form
appears 18 times in the NT and is translated by the NIV "shepherd" 17
times and 1 time as "pastor" -- in Eph. 4:11. (I believe that pastor
comes from "pasture.") If you have an NIV concordance, you may look up
those English words, but also look up "elder," "overseer," and "bishop"
(archaic) because I believe these are synonyms for the same role in theNT.
The following is from the Expository Dictionary of Bible Words by
Lawrence O. Richards:Overseer
The Greek word for "overseer" is episkopos, translated "bishop" in older
versions. Of its five occurrences in the NT, one uses the word as a title
of Jesus, who lives to guard and guide his church (1 Pe 2:25).
The concept expressed by this term is that of one who is continuously
observing, scrutinizing, and watching out for something. In the NT, what
is overseen by individuals with this ministry is the Christian community.
Two parallel terms are presbyteros ("elder") and poimen ("shepherd").
These are so close in concept and so linked in NT usage that they
probably should be treated as functional synonyms.
The NT has three passages that indicate multiple leadership among
believers (Ac 6:1-6; 20:28; Php 1:1).
Although we do not know the specific duties of the overseer, this very
important position involved working with a functioning, local church. The
NT gives the specific principles that should guide any church leader in
ministering among believers. Shepherds in the Epistles
In view of the imagery in the OT, it is not surprising that leaders are
sometimes designated shepherds in the NT. Jesus told a restored Peter,
"Feed my lambs," "Take care of my sheep," and "Feed my sheep" (Jn
21:15-17). The Ephesian elders were admonished, "Keep watch over
yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you
overseers" (Ac 20:28), and Peter speaks to other elders, charging them,
"Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as
overseers" (1 Pe 5:2). In each passage, the shepherds' attitude of loving
concern for the sheep is emphasized. Special note should be taken of
Peter's words because he guards us against overextending the image; he
says that shepherds are to be "eager to serve, not lording it over those
entrusted to [them], but being examples to the flock" (vv. 2-3).
This is from the NIV Bible Dictionary:
ELDER (Heb. zaqen, Gr. presbyteros). In ancient times the older men of a
community were known as the elders. They governed the community and made
all major decisions. Moses called the elders of Israel together to
announce that the Lord had heard their cries for help and had appointed
him to lead them out of Egypt (Exod 4:29). Later he called them out to
institute the Passover (12:21). At Sinai, 70 elders went up the mountain
with Moses and saw the God of Israel (24:9). In the wilderness, to
relieve Moses, 70 elders shared his divine anointing (Num 11:25). After
the Israelites had settled in Canaan and had a king over them, the elders
still functioned (1 Kings 8:1). Each town had its group of elders (Ezra
10:14; cf. 1 Sam 16:4). After the return from exile the elders made up
the Sanhedrin, the Jewish governing council.
The elders joined the priests and scribes against Jesus (Matt 27:12).
When churches came into being, elders were appointed for each
congregation (Acts 14:23). The terms "elders" and "bishops" are used
interchangeably in the NT (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 7). These men were
required to be blameless in their lives and obedient to the truth in
their faith (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9). Their duties involved spiritual
oversight of the congregation and teaching the Word (1 Tim 5:17). Before
the first century A.D. had elapsed, the term "bishop" had taken on a
special meaning, denoting the one leader of a church. A biblical example
of this (both in the Book of Acts and in Paul's letters) is James, the
brother of Jesus, who was obviously the leader of the Jerusalem church.
In Christ,Bob San Pascual
=======================================================
Neil wrote: No, you give me a break. You and all the trumpet-mouthed matrons. Good
grief are you obnoxious!

Carol responded: First of all Neil, I was responding to your outrageous idea that women need to be supervised by men! Actually Neil, I looked the exact definition of obnoxious up in the dictionary prior to responding, I deny your characterization of me and I have decided to no longer respond to you. I will treat you exactly as I would treat Stewart! Staying as far away as possible! cya! And by the way, when your family feels more comfortable in your presence than they do in the presence of Stewart, I will gain a whole new respect for your opinions. FYI, yesterday my husband "asked" me what I was doing today, I responded by letting him know I needed to go to the Library to get some work done. To which he responded, sounds like a good idea. I enjoy being home and told my husband I would hurry when I was leaving this morning. He said I should take my time and get everything done I needed to, that my dear in communication, not supervising. And while I was gone I came home to a big surprise. He decorated our front lawn with a nativity scene. Even making a manger, with a star, etc. So Neil, I'll repeat, if you are loving to your family, they won't be running to Stewart for company. Call that a low blow if you want, I just call em as I see em!
==============================================================
Brother Neil,I believe you have used a bit of overkill (to put it mildly)in your
broadside at Carol. We are not the enemy here bro. Stewart was the one who
has sown discord among us and God will make him pay for that one you can be
sure. He is also the one who has destroyed families.
And sister Carol, that was just plain cold and harsh towards Neil.
Brothers and sisters, in all seriousness it really is possible to have a
healthy debate without resorting to name calling and cruel inuendo or
accusations. I appeal to all of us to conduct ourselves as Christians and as
God's own people. We are going to spend the rest of eternity together with
God Himself.
Yours in Christ,
Steve
======================================================
One must be able to "think beyond scripture", and know when and where it is
appropriate to toss out the rules. Are humans made for the rules? Or are the
rules made for humans? Rules cannot hope to apply in any and all situations.
At best, they can only be vague guidelines. In situations, one must use one's
brain and think about what is the right course of action. No rule book (even
the Bible) will give you all the answers.And BTW, Hi!
My own life is a never-ending turn of events. I am finding I have to invent
new rules and throw out old ones on almost a daily basis. I am lost in a vast
sea of possible futures, and I have to pick a few and go with them. My brain
aches -- think I'll go to bed now. But it's a good position to be in, I suppose.
-Fred Mitchell Je suis libre!!!!
========================================================
The pastoring that was promised for us in Jeremiah 3 indeed should be left
to the men. Paul wrote, you have many teachers but not many fathers. He
had a fatherly influence which wasn't too prevalent in his time but
extremely lacking in our time, a true teacher must have this to fulfill that
type of the heavenly Father, to produce true sons. It takes a true man to
make a true man, and teach un-common sense. Tom was right about one thing,
not the macho stuff, but Jesus example.
This gets right into the godly love versus the "love of the world".
The godly love (agape) is about discipline, also sacrifice and other things.
Discipline would be tainted by emotion, I can't correct anyone out of anger,
that's not true discipline, not true fathering.
There is a godly anger, that's another thing, but our thoughts aren't as
God's. The "love of the world" is the false ego building love shown by the
serpent in the garden, saying "you will be like God".
In fact males will wrongly use the woman to nurture the ego, so they can
feel good and escape our conscience, desiring a mother.

However, the nature of a woman is to nurture which is great for growing
children. I'm not saying the love of God can't work through a woman, but
nature is nature, and the godly love is not represented by nurturing. The
woman nurtures the child, but that nurturing can be ego building even though
the woman has right intentions. The woman does typify wisdom, but the man
should typify God's authority and power.
Sister, I do like where you are coming from. I think I was a little long
winded but it's an interesting subject. ML
===========================================================
From: "Mark Loftus" <mloftus955@hotmail.com>

From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com

Allright, put 'em up:

An unmarried woman remains under the 'pastoral authority' of her
>father. A married woman is under the 'pastoral authority' of her
>husband. There are,of course, 'pastors' and supposed 'authorities' >who,
for the sake of some supposed superceding authority of their >own either
subtly or openly dismiss the authority of husbands and fathers.
Indeed, but to be submissive only to your own men, who, presumably
would not allow other men to subject you.

The preceding two posts were from Neil. My answer will tie in
with the assertion below that My post with the smile was the most
chauvinistic of all. A man of faith who is not fearing and is
trusting in the Lord, does not need the weight of a rule to give
him authority, he has it. My observation has been that the
strongest marriages I have seen have been the ones in which there is
a true partnership. EX> If my wife is correct about a matter but
I say "no, I am the authority of this household, blah,blah,blah"
I am acting the part of the fool. The truth is the highest

So you are claiming that you don't fear, right? Come on, now..
No one has said not to listen to the wife, that is dumb.

authority and we are all subject to Him.
I have long wondered why there should be confusion or controversy
at all, given the unequivocal nature of Paul's words and the >independence
from 'culture' of the Authority to which he referred >them; except that the
love of confusion (for the cover that it >affords sin) must have been as
busy in that ancient culture as it is >in this modern one.

My observation again, has been that those who spent the most time
preaching this doctrine were the ones doing a great deal of covering
up. Simply talking personal experience here.
<<I have found that when you stop fearing women, you don't
seem to need as many rules about what they should and
should not do, (as if they would listen anyway):-)>>

OK, OK, I can't keep silent anymore! First of all, the above post >is the
most "chauvinistic" I've seen so far-I'm assuming by the smile >it was a
joke...

My dear friend. The section in parenthesis was included for a smile, yes.
The post in general, was far from a joke. When I was concentrating on
preaching to my wife how she needed to listen to my authority it was
anything but.....I finally began to ask myself, why does this seem so
important? The more I concentrate on kindness and my own obedience, the more
I valued my wife as a person, partner, co-pilgrim the more our relationship
healed.

If you don't value your wife, why marry her. Definitely example is the best
way of teaching... But I still hear rebellion to scripture in your words,
if on bible teaching falls, the others are sure to follow.

I am head of my household in my obedience to Christ and through this.....if
everyone here was to pull away I would walk with our Lord and let the chips
fall where they might. God's ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts
than our thoughts.
Scripture doesn't agree with your theory. Paul said why women should >keep
silent-he was basically saying that women were not to be in a >teaching
position over men in the church but God entrusts them to >teach their
children at home how to be Godly men and women.

Dear Macman,
In spite of all the supposed defending of the sisters that has been >flying
back and forth(forget about defending scripture by the way->after all it is
only coming from God himself and what does He known >about it anyway?)I
sense a bit of "hostility"all the way around >concerning this issue.

Last but not least, the brothers I have known who spend the most
time trying to corral their families lose them, drive them away,
or break them down.

When you correct a christian lady, she is correctable and teachable, she can
handle and respect it.
Sometimes when you correct a woman, you are taking your life in your hands.
If you find yourself with a woman who has too much ego and can't be
corrected, her being driven away is not loss. She may come back to herself
or may not.
Nevertheless, there is a right correction from a calm and loving spirit. Any
true christian can accept that correction. No, I sure don't recommend the
COBU style of correction and dealing. The godly love involves right
correction and we all have to be able to accept correction. ML
=============================================================
From: "Mark Loftus" <mloftus955@hotmail.com>

When the christian sister follows the example of Esther; the humble picture
of her as contrasted with the haughty Queen Vashti, and her humble approach
to the king; yes the brothers will indeed take notice, and you will speak
before kings. ML
========================================================
In a message dated 11/27/99 6:19:25 PM, mloftus955@hotmail.com wrote:
<<As far as submissiveness, the example of Abigail might be better, or Esther
as Carol mentioned>>Mark,
Indeed! The woman Jezebel is the antithesis of the submissive woman,
usurping authority through seduction and, as you mentioned, ego stroking.
In Christ, Amy
=====================================================================