Can women speak at Ligonier? Why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C. Matthew McMahon

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
We all agree - hopefully - that women should not be officers in the church. Next question: can women teach men at other functions?

For example, Joni Erickson Tada spoke at Ligonier. Albert Martin, RC Sproul, John McArthur seemed to have no problem with that. Kay Arthur also has. Can a women speak at a conferecne and be encouraging from God's word. Does that pose a problem with 1 Tim. 2 or Titus' instructions about women?

Pastors - what do you think of this? Its an important question a friend asked.

I said I would say it is wrong based on the reality that women were teaching men.

And what of this?

Acts 18:26, "So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, [b:fbb3f228ce]they[/b:fbb3f228ce] took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."

Let me enlarge the question: I want to go to Peru to teach the pastors there about God and His attributes. I [b:fbb3f228ce]JUST[/b:fbb3f228ce] found out that the man in control of the conferecne is having his wife speak twice out of 12 sessions to the pastors.
(Josh - this is something to think about in terms of being able to support that conferecne.)

Would you say this is wrong - speaking to pastors in a "non-church" setting?

Why or why not?

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by webmaster]
 
[quote:bc768ee742][i:bc768ee742]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:bc768ee742]
We all agree - hopefully - that women should not be officers in the church. Next question: can women teach men at other functions?

For example, Joni Erickson Tada spoke at Ligonier. Albert Martin, RC Sproul, John McArthur seemed to have no problem with that. Kay Arthur also has. Can a women speak at a conferecne and be encouraging from God's word. Does that pose a problem with 1 Tim. 2 or Titus' instructions about women?

Pastors - what do you think of this? Its an important question a friend asked.

I said I would say it is wrong based on the reality that women were teaching men.

And what of this?

Acts 18:26, "So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, [b:bc768ee742]they[/b:bc768ee742] took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."

Let me enlarge the question: I want to go to Peru to teach the pastors there about God and His attributes. I [b:bc768ee742]JUST[/b:bc768ee742] found out that the man in control of the conferecne is having his wife speak twice out of 12 sessions to the pastors.
(Josh - this is something to think about in terms of being able to support that conferecne.)

Would you say this is wrong - speaking to pastors in a "non-church" setting?

Why or why not?

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by webmaster] [/quote:bc768ee742]

I was at Ligoniers when Joni spoke. Hers was more of a testimony. She was not, what I would call, [i:bc768ee742]teaching[/i:bc768ee742].

In the Acts passage, Priscilla is mentioned in light of her husband and their combined effort in explaining the things of God. Assuredly, she was comfortable supporting the effort of her faithful husband.

I see no reason why the woman have to step up to the plate when there are plenty of men whom need to.
:wr50:
 
Okay, let's narrow the question down so that it fits Ligonier as well as the conferecne I am considering bowing out of at this point:

Can a women get up behind the pulpit and talk to men in a para-church setting? Can she give a testimony, or encourage them from the Bible in ANY WAY in this capacity?

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by webmaster]
 
Though I am not a pastor, I'd still like to submit my input on this topic because I'm hoping that it could prove helpful or useful.

As far as women speaking at a conference, whether it be the Ligonier Ministry conference, or especially the one down at Peru, I can't see why this shouldn't be permitted. Since this is not "Church" per se, but more a gathering of church people, I don't see a conflict with Paul's instruction. What if this woman, the Pastor's wife in Peru, wants to address the people about what it takes for a godly wife to support her husband, etc., etc.? There are a number of topics a woman can address that could encourage and strengthen the congregation without necessarily setting herself up as a "teacher" of the brethren (and in this case I'm confusing the topic a bit because we have just established its not "Church.")

Perhaps the factor that should be considered above all else is the subject of the woman's address. If it is an exposition of God's Holy Word, then perhaps she should show deference to a man whether it is or isn't in a Church setting, unless of course her audience is all women.

Since women have so much to offer and can bring to the table such insight of life and godly wisdom, it would be a shame to silence them and not have them contribute to the life of the people publicly in such an assembly. I don't think that is what God is calling His Church leadership to uphold in instances such as "women should remain silent" or "not teach a man."
 
[quote:c87612b6fd][i:c87612b6fd]Originally posted by alwaysreforming[/i:c87612b6fd]
Though I am not a pastor, I'd still like to submit my input on this topic because I'm hoping that it could prove helpful or useful.

As far as women speaking at a conference, whether it be the Ligonier Ministry conference, or especially the one down at Peru, I can't see why this shouldn't be permitted. Since this is not "Church" per se, but more a gathering of church people, I don't see a conflict with Paul's instruction. What if this woman, the Pastor's wife in Peru, wants to address the people about what it takes for a godly wife to support her husband, etc., etc.? There are a number of topics a woman can address that could encourage and strengthen the congregation without necessarily setting herself up as a "teacher" of the brethren (and in this case I'm confusing the topic a bit because we have just established its not "Church.")

Perhaps the factor that should be considered above all else is the subject of the woman's address. If it is an exposition of God's Holy Word, then perhaps she should show deference to a man whether it is or isn't in a Church setting, unless of course her audience is all women.

Since women have so much to offer and can bring to the table such insight of life and godly wisdom, it would be a shame to silence them and not have them contribute to the life of the people publicly in such an assembly. I don't think that is what God is calling His Church leadership to uphold in instances such as "women should remain silent" or "not teach a man." [/quote:c87612b6fd]

AR writes:
"Since this is not "Church" per se, but more a gathering of church people"

And this:
"and in this case I'm confusing the topic a bit because we have just established its not "Church."

When the church gathers, it does not have to be necessarily referring to a local assembly. For instance, when the people of the ligonier conference meet, is it not "the church" gathering? The idea that woman should keep silent is not solely for the Lords day alone.

I agree that the topic is the issue. I do not believe it would be profitable for men to sit under a woman expressing the trials of womanhood or wifery. These topics are for woman.

Matt Asks:
"Can a women get up behind the pulpit and talk to men in a para-church setting? Can she give a testimony, or encourage them from the Bible in ANY WAY in this capacity?"

Matt, I say, it depends on the topic. If it borders upon her [i:c87612b6fd]teaching[/i:c87612b6fd] men or could be construed as teaching, I would say, no.

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
It is my understanding that the passages in question address women taking on an authoratative role within the church teaching the Word. This would include acting as an elder, pastor, or teaching men in a Bible study class. These things are clearly forbidden by Scripture.

Priscilla was in private along side her husband explaining the Scriptures to Apollos. It was more personal discipleship. She did not address Apollos in front of the congregation and she and her husband were not co-pastors in the church!

We need to ask a few questions about the conference to understand the role women will be playing.

Is it sponsired by a church as a ministry to pastors? It is under the direct oversight of a group of elders or is it truly para-church, just a group of Christians meeting for a conference or workshops?

Also it might be helpful to know what the pastor's wife in question will be saying/teaching/presenting at the conference.

If she will be giving Biblical instruction to pastors then no, that should not be allowed. If it is testimony or encouragement or some other kind of presentation then I think that is fine. But as soon as you stand to teach the Word, you are taking a position of authority, and this is reserved for men.

I have not ever heard of Joni actually teaching, or giving instruction from the Word. She usually gives a testimony and shows the application of Scripture to life, but she does not [i:5960cf39a0]teach[/i:5960cf39a0] unless it is only women present.

I know at some conferences for pastors a wife will speak to give insight to the role of being a pastors wife to give understanding to the men in dealing with their wives and families as they continue in ministry. We men are prone to get tunnel vision and forget at times the toll of ministry on our families. Usually though the pastors wives are there in attendance with their husbands and she addresses them in a separate "lesson". This is fine too.

So what will she be doing? And how is the conference structured? What are the beliefs of this pastor and his wife regarding women's roles in the church?

Phillip
 
But we readily admit that the PB is not a church or denomination. It is more like a conference call with multimedia capabilities!

:eureka:

Phillip
 
[quote:8309ea7711][i:8309ea7711]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:8309ea7711]
women have good things to say.

I would say that the context is that a women ought not be in a [i:8309ea7711]position of authority[/i:8309ea7711] over the man (in church).

And, I would be careful, this could get defined too stricktly that we would be saying that women shouldn't post on the Puritanboard:wr50:

-Paul [/quote:8309ea7711]

Paul,
We are not [i:8309ea7711]physically[/i:8309ea7711] gathering here as representatives. I believe the exhortations refer to when we gather together as a church. This discussion board cannot be mistaken as that type of gathering. No bread being broke here Paul!

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
In 1 Cor. 11 I believe it's implied that women can vocally pray or prophesy IF she wears a headcovering. Is it alright for women to speak if there is a covering on their head?

(For the sake of not getting side-tracked discussion let's presume that a covering includes both a covering OR hair.)
 
[quote:4941924909][i:4941924909]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:4941924909]
[quote:4941924909][i:4941924909]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:4941924909]
But we readily admit that the PB is not a church or denomination. It is more like a conference call with multimedia capabilities!

:eureka:

Phillip [/quote:4941924909]

well, do you think Ligonier is a church or a denomination???

that's why I was saying...be carefull

-Paul

p.s. btw, how you doin Pastor Way? [/quote:4941924909]


Paul, I may be wrong, but wouldn't this be an example of the universal body gathering (Many church bodies in one place).
 
I see no problem with a woman praying in the church. We would have to define prophecy though as it relates to this issue.

Phillip

-- and by the Way, Paul, I am doing okay! Keep praying that I get a job ( "secular" )though!!! Things are tight and we are behind financially.......then again, aren't most of us?!?
 
Paul, I was not referring to "different denoms", but the presbyterian assembly.

Maybe that is secondary......It would all depend upon why they were meeting at the 7-eleven.
 
Paul,
That is what I meant when I said it was "secondary". I was pondering the idea Paul........cut me some slack my professorial pal!:grin:

Coffee and God talk.....no pastor teaching. Not the church gathering; sorry!

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
[quote:d1bf0a6d37][i:d1bf0a6d37]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:d1bf0a6d37]
[quote:d1bf0a6d37][i:d1bf0a6d37]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:d1bf0a6d37]
Paul,
That is what I meant when I said it was "secondary". I was pondering the idea Paul........cut me some slack my professorial pal!:grin:

Coffee and God talk.....no pastor teaching. Not the church gathering; sorry!

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:d1bf0a6d37]

hey, I an cutting you slack:lol:

now, what if 3 of the 15 were pastors?

-Paul [/quote:d1bf0a6d37]

There's another PB typo for the list!!!

Are they officially organized? In other words, are they there by chance or reason?
 
Maybe I'm asking a question that has already been asked here but i just didn't understand it...well you know how we women can be :puzzled: :lol: j/k...

whats that? sarcasm isn't a fruit of the Holy Spirit?????

MY QUESTION ISSSSS.....

So if physically a mixed group (male and female) was at a starbucks discussing sayyy....paedo v. credo or something - would it be wrong for the women to be involved in the discussion? would they only be allowed to ask questions?

I'm just curious what yall think...i mean - of course I think that in an informal discussion women are free to discuss these things...but I wonder if I'm in the minority on the board here...
 
I have thought about this before, especially as regards whether it is right for me to post on the board.

The first passage (let the women keep silence in the churches, or the assemblies) clearly prohibits me from addressing the church met for worship. This is part of the regulative principle, I think.

Then there is a restriction on woman teaching, that is given in a context of men praying publicly, and- it seems- of a woman "dressing up." So it is a context of public prayer, at least.
Does anyone know if there is a formal idea behind the word "teach"?

If not, then I don't think there is any problem with a give and take discussion like on the puritan board. I am not usurping authority over the moderators or anybody to present an opinion-- I am not in a formal position at all: I am a common peon. Nobody even has to read my post. The moderators can delete it if it is out of line. I have no "authority" here. Whereas a woman standing up to address an audience has a certain amount of authority over them because of the formal position she is in. I think that is what Paul is objecting to-- a woman in that position for the purpose of religious instruction, in a gathering where prayer is offered.

So, I know it is wrong for me to have the floor in a worship service, but I don't know if it is wrong for me to have the floor in a meeting that is not a worship service, if I am not going to be teaching doctrine.

I think I would be uncomfortable speaking in any religious setting where my husband would feel uncomfortable interrupting or qualifying me-- which is basically the difference between a formal and informal setting, for me: but I do think a testimony is different than doctrinal instruction. It is more like Miriam and the women singing in front of the men in celebration, than like a woman standing behind the alter and performing the sacrifices-- which would have been absolutely heinous.




[Edited on 3-25-2004 by a mere housewife]
 
This is the KEY:

"I think I would be uncomfortable speaking in any religious setting where my husband would feel uncomfortable interrupting or qualifying me-- which is basically the difference between a formal and informal setting, for me: but I do think a testimony is different than doctrinal instruction. It is more like Miriam and the women singing in front of the men in celebration, than like a woman standing behind the alter and performing the sacrifices-- which would have been absolutely heinous. "

Very well said. Most excellent.
 
You gals are great on the PB and would be great at Starbucks, too! You are right on as far as I can tell in what you are saying.

(you might verify that with your husbands/fathers........) hehehe :wink:

Phillip
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the distinct impression that I'm not welcome to opine here. Never mind if I'm right or I know the Scriptures as well as anybody or I bring up points nobody thought of. I'm female, and therefore I must be deceived. Or something. That really hurts, guys! I don't happen to have a husband. I don't see any Scriptural warrant for submitting to men in general. This undercurrent of misogyny is the worst part of Reformed churches. God made me smart in the absence of a husband. So I guess I'm stupid still, and don't deserve to be heard. Well, ya'all need to look at 1Cor12:11. Then tell the Holy Spirit that you think He wouldn't give a woman any knowledge worth having, even if it's for the edification of the Body of Christ. That really hurts, guys! None of you are my husband or pastor, nor are you elders or deacons in my church. Why should I submit to you? Granted, you have provided me with a wealth of knowledge in a short time. But I'm not your Mrs. And sometimes I think some of you are frivolous, distracted from the point, or (dare I say it?) wrong.
 
Phillip, if you ever refer to us as "gals" again, I will personally light your stogie.:flaming:

:bouncy:

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by mjbee]
 
Matthew,
I can imagine how difficult a decision this must be for you to make, considering the need you've expressed of the pastors in Peru and knowing their hunger and desire to learn more about the reformed teachings.

I hope you'll have an opportunity to speak to the man in charge about this ASAP. Hopefully you can explain your position to him and perhaps he'll not have his wife speak at the gathering as planned.

You had planned to go and teach the pastors about the reformed faith. Maybe this is just an opportunity to do some "pre-conference teaching" about one element of the reformed faith - the regulative principle.

Just my :wr50:,
Bob
 
Originally posted by mjbee:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the distinct impression that I'm not welcome to opine here.

S: Now, You know that's not true.


Never mind if I'm right or I know the Scriptures as well as anybody or I bring up points nobody thought of. I'm female, and therefore I must be deceived.

S: No one said that. However,

1 Pet 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

S: Are [i:30699e092f]woman[/i:30699e092f] weaker vessels? Do not mistake our intention. It is not to imply that you are devalued or handicapped.


Or something. That really hurts, guys! I don't happen to have a husband. I don't see any Scriptural warrant for submitting to men in general.

S: The general harmony of the scriptures is "woman are to submit". Most of the scenario's identify w/ married couples. Do you believe that since there are no scenario's that specifically address single woman that the items mentioned for married woman are not for single woman of God also? As Phillip mentioned, if not your husband, your father, your pastor, the elders, deacons etc.

Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

S: I think the key word here is [i:30699e092f]obedient[/i:30699e092f]. I do not believe the term is to be understood like a young child is told to be obedient.

1 Pet 3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1 Pet 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1 Pet 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

S: My two cents: Paul is describing a woman who is less than bold. She is reserved.


This undercurrent of misogyny is the worst part of Reformed churches.

S: I believe this is your misinterpretation. The reformed men I know, coddle their woman. They have been scripturally exhorted that the woman is a [i:30699e092f]weaker vessel[/i:30699e092f]; they encapsulate the female, much like a life raft or a warm blanket. I see my wife as a rose and I am the vase.

M. Henry writes:

The apostle having treated of the duties of subjects to their sovereigns, and of servants to their masters, proceeds to explain the duty of husbands and wives.

I. Lest the Christian matrons should imagine that their conversion to Christ, and their interest in all Christian privileges, exempted them from subjection to their pagan or Jewish husbands, the apostle here tells them,

1. In what the duty of wives consists.

(1.) In subjection, or an affectionate submission to the will, and obedience to the just authority, of their own husbands, which obliging conduct would be the most likely way to win those disobedient and unbelieving husbands who had rejected the word, or who attended to no other evidence of the truth of it than what they saw in the prudent, peaceable, and exemplary conversation of their wives. Learn, [1.] Every distinct relation has its particular duties, which ministers ought to preach, and the people ought to understand. [2.] A cheerful subjection, and a loving, reverential respect, are duties which Christian women owe their husbands, whether they be good or bad; these were due from Eve to Adam before the fall, and are still required, though much more difficult now than they were before, Gen. iii. 16; 1 Tim. ii. 11. [3.] Though the design of the word of the gospel is to win and gain souls to Christ Jesus, yet there are many so obstinate that they will not be won by the word. [4.] There is nothing more powerful, next to the word of God, to win people, than a good conversation, and the careful discharge of relative duties. [5.] Irreligion and infidelity do not dissolve the bonds, nor dispense with the duties, of civil relations; the wife must discharge her duty to her own husband, though he obey not the word.

(2.) In fear, or reverence to their husbands, Eph. v. 33.

(3.) In a chaste conversation, which their unbelieving husbands would accurately observe and attend to. [1.] Evil men are strict observers of the conversation of the professors of religion; their curiosity, envy, and jealousy, make them watch narrowly the ways and lives of good people. [2.] A chaste conversation, attended with due and proper respect to every one, is an excellent means to win them to the faith of the gospel and obedience to the word.

(4.) In preferring the ornaments of the mind to those of the body. [1.] He lays down a rule in regard to the dress of religious women, v. 3. Here are three sorts of ornaments forbidden: plaiting of hair, which was commonly used in those times by lewd women; wearing of gold, or ornaments made of gold, was practised by Rebecca, and Esther, and other religious women, but afterwards became the attire chiefly of harlots and wicked people; putting on of apparel, which is not absolutely forbidden, but only too much nicety and costliness in it. Learn, First, Religious people should take care that all their external behaviour be answerable to their profession of Christianity: They must be holy in all manner of conversation. Secondly, The outward adorning of the body is very often sensual and excessive; for instance, when it is immoderate, and above your degree and station in the world, when you are proud of it and puffed up with it, when you dress with design to allure and tempt others, when your apparel is too rich, curious, or superfluous, when your fashions are fantastical, imitating the levity and vanity of the worst people, and when they are immodest and wanton. The attire of a harlot can never become a chaste Christian matron. [2.] Instead of the outward adorning of the body, he directs Christian wives to put on much more excellent and beautiful ornaments, v. 4. Here note, First, The part to be adorned: The hidden man of the heart; that is, the soul; the hidden, the inner man. Take care to adorn and beautify your souls rather than your bodies. Secondly, The ornament prescribed. It must, in general, be something not corruptible, that beautifies the soul, that is, the graces and virtues of God's Holy Spirit. The ornaments of the body are destroyed by the moth, and perish in the using; but the grace of God, the longer we wear it, the brighter and better it is. More especially, the finest ornament of Christian women is a meek and quiet spirit, a tractable easy temper of mind, void of passion, pride, and immoderate anger, discovering itself in a quiet obliging behaviour towards their husbands and families. If the husband be harsh, and averse to religion (which was the case of these good wives to whom the apostle gives this direction), there is no way so likely to win him as a prudent meek behaviour. At least, a quiet spirit will make a good woman easy to herself, which, being visible to others, becomes an amiable ornament to a person in the eyes of the world. Thirdly, The excellency of it. Meekness and calmness of spirit are, in the sight of God, of great price--amiable in the sight of men, and precious in the sight of God. Learn, 1. A true Christian's chief care lies in the right ordering and commanding of his own spirit. Where the hypocrite's work ends, there the true Christian's work begins. 2. The endowments of the inner man are the chief ornaments of a Christian; but especially a composed, calm, and quiet spirit, renders either man or woman beautiful and lovely.

2. The duties of Christian wives being in their nature difficult, the apostle enforces them by the example, (1.) Of the holy women of old, who trusted in God, v. 5. "You can pretend nothing of excuse from the weakness of your sex, but what they might. They lived in old time, and had less knowledge to inform them and fewer examples to encourage them; yet in all ages they practised this duty; they were holy women, and therefore their example is obligatory; they trusted in God, and yet did not neglect their duty to man: the duties imposed upon you, of a quiet spirit and of subjection to your own husbands, are not new, but what have ever been practised by the greatest and best women in the world." (2.) Of Sara, who obeyed her husband, and followed him when he went from Ur of the Chaldeans, not knowing whither he went, and called him lord, thereby showing him reverence and acknowledging his superiority over her; and all this though she was declared a princess by God from heaven, by the change of her name, "Whose daughters you are if you imitate her in faith and good works, and do not, through fear of your husbands, either quit the truth you profess or neglect your duty to them, but readily perform it, without either fear or force, out of conscience towards God and sense of duty to them." Learn, [1.] God takes exact notice, and keeps an exact record, of the actions of all men and women in the world. [2.] The subjection of wives to their husbands is a duty which has been practised universally by holy women in all ages. [3.] The greatest honour of any man or woman lies in a humble and faithful deportment of themselves in the relation or condition in which Providence has placed them. [4.] God takes notice of the good that is in his servants, to their honour and benefit, but covers a multitude of failings; Sara's infidelity and derision are overlooked, when her virtues are celebrated. [5.] Christians ought to do their duty to one another, not out of fear, nor from force, but from a willing mind, and in obedience to the command of God. Wives should be in subjection to their churlish husbands, not from dread and amazement, but from a desire to do well and to please God.

II. The husband's duty to the wife comes next to be considered.

1. The particulars are, (1.) Cohabitation, which forbids unnecessary separation, and implies a mutual communication of goods and persons one to another, with delight and concord. (2.) Dwelling with the wife according to knowledge; not according to lust, as brutes; nor according to passion, as devils; but according to knowledge, as wise and sober men, who know the word of God and their own duty. (3.) Giving honour to the wife--giving due respect to her, and maintaining her authority, protecting her person, supporting her credit, delighting in her conversation, affording her a handsome maintenance, and placing a due trust and confidence in her.

2. The reasons are, Because she is the weaker vessel by nature and constitution, and so ought to be defended: but then the wife is, in other and higher respects, equal to her husband; they are heirs together of the grace of life, of all the blessings of this life and another, and therefore should live peaceably and quietly one with another, and, if they do not, their prayers one with another and one for another will be hindered, so that often "you will not pray at all, or, if you do, you will pray with a discomposed ruffled mind, and so without success." Learn, (1.) The weakness of the female sex is no just reason either for separation or contempt, but on the contrary it is a reason for honour and respect: Giving honour to the wife as unto the weaker vessel. (2.) There is an honour due to all who are heirs of the grace of life. (3.) All married people should take care to behave themselves so lovingly and peaceably one to another that they may not by their broils hinder the success of their prayers.

You continue:
God made me smart in the absence of a husband.

S: This is a blessing. You didn't need to mention that. Most woman whom frequent this board are sharp. The dialog here is deep. For you to remain says a thing or two of your intellect.

So I guess I'm stupid still, and don't deserve to be heard.

S: Had someone implied that here. Tell me who? I will take them to the tool shed and chasten them rightly. :rolleyes:
Seriously........No one implied that.


Well, ya'all need to look at 1Cor12:11. Then tell the Holy Spirit that you think He wouldn't give a woman any knowledge worth having, even if it's for the edification of the Body of Christ.

S: Again, who will dispute this?


That really hurts, guys! None of you are my husband or pastor, nor are you elders or deacons in my church. Why should I submit to you?

S: Do you believe that you are sending forth an attitude of being chaste or reserved? There is a way to get your point across without sounding so harsh. No one has intentionally gone out of their way to harm you sister. Take it easy.


Granted, you have provided me with a wealth of knowledge in a short time. But I'm not your Mrs. And sometimes I think some of you are frivolous, distracted from the point, or (dare I say it?) wrong.

S: We are wrong on many occasion. Our frames are as dust. Blame Adam. Or dare I say EVE?:rolleyes:
 
[b:2cd87e114b]mjbee wrote:[/b:2cd87e114b]
Phillip, if you ever refer to us as "gals" again, I will personally light your stogie.

That sounds like you're being most submissive. Will you also bring him his slippers as well?

[ducking before the frying pan ... I mean ... 10-pound theology book ... hits me outside the head] :lol:

Just kidding, of course. I think you raised some good questions in your previous post. Your comments really make me want to dig into the scriptures a little more and ask the question, why?

I definitely don't think its a question of who's smarter than who, or anything like that. I think it may be more just yielding to God's order of things.

If we think about the Levitical priesthood in the OT, I think it would be pretty safe to say that any man or woman (or child, for that matter) was more than capable of performing the duties of the priest's office. It wasn't rocket science. But God chose certain people to perform those duties. Others were forbidden. I can't remember off hand which king it was, but one of the kings took it upon himself to go into the temple and make a sacrifice. He was rebuked for his actions.

God gives us all knowledge, some more than others. The trick is for each of us to discern how God wants us to use that knowledge within the guidelines he's given.

That's just my :wr50:. I expect that I'll be getting some change back.

Bob
 
I am currently corresponding with SS right now. I'll let you know. I would love to see this work out, but I could not support a minsitry that does not support the Word on an important issue. Last year this did not happen. The women spoke to the women and the men to the men.
 
[quote:25607716f9][i:25607716f9]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:25607716f9]
Phillip, if you ever refer to us as "gals" again, I will personally light your stogie.:flaming:

:bouncy:

[/quote:25607716f9]

Hmmmm, note to self, a group of women discussing theology must never be referred to as "gals"......

[b:25607716f9]G[/b:25607716f9] irls
[b:25607716f9]A[/b:25607716f9] nswering
[b:25607716f9]L[/b:25607716f9] ogically and
[b:25607716f9]S[/b:25607716f9] martly

Okay, I'll find something else to call you!

Phillip :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Santiago DO
Men/women proportion attendance at church
Replies
8
Views
1K
chuckd
chuckd
Soonerborn
  • Locked
Can someone summarize what happened at the PCA general assembly?
Replies
3
Views
2K
yeutter
Y
A
  • Locked
reformed baptist church's attitude towards women
Replies
18
Views
9K
a
A
A
  • Locked
  • Poll
Should women cover up?
3 4 5
Replies
147
Views
21K
LadyFlynt
LadyFlynt
Romans922
  • Locked
Women in Ministry: Dan Doriani
Replies
29
Views
4K
Edward
Edward
Back
Top