pinklight

I’ve more to add:

So when women teach with men present they are not violating God’s law or Scripture but rather (man made religious law) fallible human conjecture based on what seems to man to be implied. God’s laws are important for this very reason, so that we know what sin is. Women teaching men publicaly for some comps is sin and for other comps is not. How confusing comp land can be.

Mike’s left out of the equation “God’s laws” and makes the framework “Scripture.” Yet “women should not teach with men present” is not Scripture but rather conjecture. Scripture is infallible and inerrant. On the other hand, Mike is saying that certain parts of it seem to imply this (biblical head”ship”) and that (male leaders in church) and if Scripture says something then it does not need a second witness. But Scripture happens to NOT say the things that Mike believes about men and women and roles. And that it happens to not say any of those things MUST be because Scripture is infallible and inerrant. So when women teach with men present they are not violating God’s law or Scripture but rather fallible human conjecture based on what seems to be implied.

Hi Kay!

Glad you are here!

What’s it like for me to observe and reason the way I do? It’s playtime! Observation is a playground where reason is free and free to toy around ;P

…Thankfully, Cheryl shares her toys! 🙂

The LAW has finally been found lol! ;P

Mike said:

“So, while the Bible never says, “godly women who teach right doctrine are not allowed to teach men” it certainly seems to imply that there is a biblical headship and leadership that men are responsible to provide.”

It is great for women to use their gifts and teach. It is just that the Bible says that women should not do this with men present.”

The question is does the bible, in 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6, 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 12-14, Acts 20, 1 Peter 3:1, Eph 5:22, OR Eph 4 and 1 Co 11 really imply what Mike thinks or believes it does that is, biblical head”ship” in marriage and male leadership when christians are gathered? To Mike, it certainly seems to imply such.

It’s not great then for women to use their gifts and teach with men present but this is NOT according to what the bible SAYS because it does not say that. It is not great for women to use their gifts and teach with men present according to what Mike thinks or believes is seemingly implied by what the bible says.

In Mike’s view then, universaly women are prohibited from teaching (using their gift) with men present on the grounds of “seeming implication.”

The LAW then that forbids women from teaching with men present IS “implication that seems to exist” (which is a certainty according to Mike).

Sounds like the people gathered would be tainted with mucky muck by women’s voices if women were to publicaly correct errant prophetic word.

How bogus.

Wycliffe NT
35 But if they will any thing learn, ask they their husbands at home; for it is foul thing to a woman to speak in the church.

So it is “foul”, “filthy” or “shameful” for women to correct errant prophetic word? Sounds like a nasty thing for them to do…

“I just think that the bible spells out differing roles (not better or worse roles) for males and females.”

I would like to see where this is spelled out. No comp has ever been able to show me a passage or verse that spells out roles for “men and women” or “males and females”. 1 Tim 2 passage is in the singular, Eph 5 is about husbands and wives, the 1 Co 14 verses under dispute talks of women with husbands, and Eve was the wife of Adam…

It seems Paul’s opponents whom he quotes in 1 Co 14, thought of church (the assembly or gathering of christians) as “the holy place”…

Why cross over and so violate the written boundaries that Paul laid in vv11-15?

“I don’t think it can be explained away that women were falsely teaching or any other explanation the make the passage to mean exactly the opposite of what it says.”

I would like to know how women (pl) teaching correctly can be pulled out of vv11-15. Except I already know that it’s impossible to pull that out. ;P I say leave the word alone and leave it alone on it’s page that way “women” plural cannot be forced into the passage in one’s mind.

“It seems like our interpretations come down to this: Is what is written true or is what is written so unclear and misconstrued that we cannot find what is true in it so we should dismiss it?”

This is what is written:

“I do not allow a woman to teach nor usurp authority over a man”

Is it true? Yes.

Is the singular grammar unclear? No.

Is the replacement of the inspired singular grammar with the plural, misconstrued:

I do not allow women to teach nor usurp authority over men.

Yes. Why? Because what is written (the singular) is true.

Can we find what is true about verse 12 which is in the singular? Yes, ONLY if it’s context is NOT dismissed.

“I don’t think it can be explained away that women were falsely teaching or any other explanation the make the passage to mean exactly the opposite of what it says.”

I’m clarifying ;P

I don’t think it can be explained away that women were falsely teaching or any other explanation to make VERSE 12 to mean exactly the opposit of what it says.

More thoughts…

“The idea that you put forth that allows woman to lead, teach, and exercise authority over men is based on me not having a “law” to back up my position. I’m really not trying to be mean hear, but I’m just reading what it says and trying to apply it. I don’t think it can be explained away that women were falsely teaching or any other explanation the make the passage to mean exactly the opposite of what it says. I agree that v.11 through 15 go together and that v. 15 is a hard verse to understand, but I don’t think we can say because the end of that passage is difficult, let’s just throw out verse 12.”

Is V12 a law itself or not? IF the verse is a law and IF it does mean that women are not to teach and have/exercise authority over men in the church then the comp understanding would be that it should be obeyed. But if it’s not a law, then what is it? A prohibition that can just be ran over by women and such is acceptable to God? This is why it is important whether or not what Mike speaks of (particularily v12) is a law commanded by God.

Some thoughts…

In discussion/debate 1, Mike’s answer seemed to be tied back all the way to 1 Tim 2. It began with 1 Tim 3 but behind that for support was 1 Tim 2, and so 1 Co 14 was seen through that lens (and also an interpretation/lens of Eph 5 vv22-24). And it is obvious now that this is the case. And now as can be seen the focus is not really on 1 Tim 2 vv11-15 passage. The focus is on only one verse – V12:

“My greatest problem with your view is that you siphon away all the passages that could possibly go against your position instead of giving the consideration that when Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man”(1 Tim 2:12)…he may have really meant “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.”…I agree that v.11 through 15 go together and that v. 15 is a hard verse to understand, but I don’t think we can say because the end of that passage is difficult, let’s just throw out verse 12.”

It seems to me then that so far this view of 1 Co 14 sits on 4 verses, a 1 Tim 2 verse and a few Eph 5 verses:

“It seems like our interpretations come down to this: Is what is written true or is what is written so unclear and misconstrued that we cannot find what is true in it so we should dismiss it?”

Anca:

“Only briefly is the judgment of prophetic words mentioned in vs 29. The vs says,” Let the prophets speak two or three , and then let the other judge” KJV.”

Glad you pointed this out Anaca! I reviewed the passage, before I posted my comments and now I even remember having read that verse but it had slipped my mind (not surprised) when I commented, lol

Point being though that it is just a brief mention of “judgment” of prophecy and “and then let the other judge” is not enough to conclude that women are not to take part in it. There’s just no way to show that when women are being silenced within the passage, that such is what Paul was refering to – the judging of prophecy.

I’m reading that the 1 Co 14 interpretation above began with an interpretation of 1 TIM 3 about elders/pastors.

“I do think that this passage shows is an ecclesiastical authority that is by men and that the men are to publically correct an errant prophetic word primarily because the women are not the elders/pastors.”

Then it is stated to be about (the law that is) “correction of errant prophecy” which is not even in the passage.

“The 1 Corinthians 14 passage has to do with the corporate worship setting and specifically the judgment of prophetic words.”

Then the support for the argument is just another interpretation as seen through the lens of an interpretation of Eph 5 of “male headship.”

“Paul is likely forbidding women to speak up and judge prophecies (this is in line in the immediate context; cf. 1 Cor 14:29) since such an activity would subvert male headship.”

Next, “correction of errant prophecy/the law” is tied backwards to woman’s creation in Genesis, in a garden which is not even a public church setting even though the public church setting is where the interpretation began:

“I do think that this passage shows is an ecclesiastical authority that is by men and that the men are to publically correct an errant prophetic word primarily because the women are not the elders/pastors.”

“‘Law also says’. Paul is probably thinking of the woman’s creation “from” or “for” the man. (see 11:8-9; Gen. 2:20-24).”

So round and round it goes…

“In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” I link this passage to 1 Timothy 3:2…when Paul says that one of the requirements for an overseer is to be “the husband of one wife/woman.” I think these two passages show that the position of overseer is to be a man and that the man is to be the teacher…I don’t think that means… but I do think that Paul is saying the exercising authority is not what God desires of a woman in a church.”

The paragraph ended with, “but I do think that Paul is saying the exercising of authority is not what God desires of a woman in a church.” So the judging of prophecy/correction of errant prophecy in this view of 1 Co 14 is considered “authoritative.” So really the idea of judging of prophecy in this view not only comes from nowhere within the passage of 1 Co 14 itself, but somehow the non-existent idea (show me where it is?) is considered “authoritative” because it is somehow tied to an interpretation of 1 Tim 2, “In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” I link this passage to 1 Timothy 3:2).” – back at the beginning again.

Do we need to start with 1 Tim 2? Genesis? A concept that doesn’t exist in a passage (judging/correction of prophecy)? 1 Tim 3?

I think we need to start with 1 Co 14 by itself and not bring any of our other interpretations into the passage. I don’t think we can mix contexts of different letters and scriptures and end up making sense of anything.

Sounds good, Cheryl 🙂

“Paul is likely forbidding women to speak up and judge prophecies (this is in line in the immediate context; cf. 1 Cor 14:29) since such an activity would subvert male headship. ‘ Law also says’. Paul is probably thinking of the woman’s creation “from” or “for” the man. (see 11:8-9; Gen. 2:20-24)…”

I cannot find Paul saying anything on the judgement of prophecies unless you mean “interpretation of” which is in the passage. So Paul, in this view is likely forbidding wives (specificaly) to publicaly correct error since it would subvert male headship (interpretation of Eph 5).

So a woman correcting errant prophecy in the church would subvert male headship (of the home).

“I think a woman can bring questions and even correction to her husband…”
“Paul is likely forbidding women to speak up and judge prophecies (this is in line in the immediate context; cf. 1 Cor 14:29) since such an activity would subvert male headship.”

A wife then correcting her husband at home does not subvert male headship (in the home, Eph 5) but a wife correcting her husband at church would subvert male headship (in the home, Eph 5).

Yet a women (married or not) cannot correct men (married or not) in church because of male ecclesiastical authority. (1 Tim 3)

If I’m understanding correctly (I donno) then women can correct errant prophecy (done by men or women) but only outside of the church which would make it non-authoritative? So what’s done in church (assembly) is authoritative but what’s done outside is not.

So when a man (elder/pastor or not) corrects errant prophecy outside of church he is not acting with authority, his correction then would not be authoritative?

If women cannot “correct an errant prophetic word” than they cannot interpret a prophetic word.

Hi Cheryl and Mike,

I have some thoughts and questions in this comment…

Mike:
“I do think that this passage shows is an ecclesiastical authority that is by men and that the men are to publicly correct an errant prophetic word primarily because the women are not the elders/pastors.”

What‘s been said above can be re-worded saying:

I do think that this passage shows is an ecclesiastical authority that is by men and that the men are to publicly correct an errant prophetic word primarily because the men are the elders/pastors (an interpretation of 1 Tim 3).

And women then are not to publically correct for the same primary reason – the women are not the elders/pastors the men are (an interpretation of 1 Tim 3). 1 Co 14 then is seen through the lens of an interpretation of 1 Tim 3. And since some men are the elders/pastors, any man is to publically correct errant prophetic word. But since no women are the elders/pastors, all women are not to publically correct.

In this view of 1 Co 14, are women to publically correct an errant prophetic word of women? Can women teach other women in church?

Here then, the foundation of the argument rests on ecclesiastical authority (public church setting I safely assume) that is by men which begins with 1 Tim 3. Therefore the passage of 1 Co 14 itself cannot/does not show an ecclesiastical authority that is by men but an interpretation through an interpretation does.

Where does the idea of “public correction of errant prophetic word” show itself within 1 Co 14? Sure errant prophecy happens all the time by those in the church, but does Paul even once talk about error of prophecy and if he does, where is this seen/ read/written within the passage?

34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to INQUIRE about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

And noting some things Paul said about prophecy within the chp:

“3But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort.“

“4…but he who prophesies edifies the church.”

“5…He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.

A conclusion: The one who interprets is greater than the one who does not.

Where is errant prophecy spoken of in anyway, in 1 Co 14? How does one go from “inquire” to “correction of errant prophecy”? How is the switch made from “wives” to women? How does one go from “interpreting prophecy” to “correction of errant prophecy”?

I’m afraid the step-ford wife movement is coming soon… (read some prophecy awhile ago…)

Not a whole lot can irk me more than the thought of a human being living as a robot having lost their own personhood that was made in God’s image…

As long as the debate continues the way it’s going… women will continue to become free but others are going to “lose themselves”… and so I suspect there is going to be “strange” negative reaction in the future by non-egals.

CBMW this last year came out with an article saying that male headship will exist in heaven which is kin to beliefs about women in Mormonism. Perhaps the stage is being set… I’m curious how the debate issue is going to play out within the years to come.

I’m so glad I am not part of organized religion and it’s trappings…

Hi Alison,

You are funny! Yeah, what is up with the lack of proof and people not caring more about it? Tradition and following the crowd is just so much easier for the flesh. There are clear boundaries in the scriptures (1 Tim 2 is in an iron box) but people just run right over them for the sake of themselves… For me, everything ENDS with the facts and proof. They are the scriptural boundaries which is scriptural authority. They are the end of all arguments. They will always be there and cannot be done away with, so they win the day. 🙂

gengwall, thank you. That was such a nice comment. I liked reading it. Yes, I’ve gathered before alot of what you said…

I’m tired of all the “feelings” issues, personaly. It’s like, “Hello, get with the program and accept the fatcs, even if they make you want to cry. Grow up, already!” I say that because of how much damage and harm has been done to people because of comp doctrine. The harm that has been done to people, doesn’t make me happy, at all. All because people go with “feelings” over scriptural facts. I’m so tired of it at this moment. ;P I’m having “one of those days”, and I don’t even know what that means.. lol!

Isn’t there one person within the church, on the entire planet that can prove, from the 1 Tim 2 passage that Paul stopped more than 1 woman from teaching more than 1 man? Is there a comp out there (who BELIEVES that women should not teach men) who even cares enough about where the bible draws it’s own lines that is, who would respect scriptural boundaries and therefore uphold what is truley biblical and authoritative? If Paul did not stop more than 1 specific woman from teaching 1 specific man, then how can any stop women in general from teaching men or promote what Paul did not teach?

So today I am mulling over the inherent problems with comp doctrine. What bugs me most is that NONE of it can be proven. So I’m wondering why people, whether the pew sitters or the leaders who hold to this unproven doctrine, clamp on to it. What is so attractive about it? Or why are people attracted to it when it cannot even be proven? Other things can be proven from the scriptures like the doctrine of the Trinity, but comp doctrine cannot. Are people really that uninterested in what the truth is, what can and cannot be proven, facts?

Then I’ve another concern today as I’m mulling over comp ideology. I’m concerned with those who do know better, those who know that their doctrine is false having nothing solid to support it. Those are the ones that I am not happy with, at all. These ones are the wolves.

So today I’m trying to figure out a way that I will be able to be appeased with the garbage of it all.

Thanks for letting me vent, Cheryl! 🙂

And Neo claiming that he Refuted you on 1 Tim 2… *rolls eyes & getting a laugh* His claim of having “refuted” you is a perfect example of a main problem with those arguing for and promoting comp doctrine. There is no way around it – THEY do not even understand what they are saying by the very words they use. If he can Believe that he “refuted” you, then he can also believe that the sky pink and not blue. That’s how much sense he makes by such a claim. Where did he leave his head? Where most of the problems lie, is in BELIEF. If someone wants to believe that the sky is pink they will do so even when the facts show that it is otherwise and stare them right in the face.

Okay, I’m outta here, back to solving my issue with comp doctrine and those who know better…

Well Cheryl hearing the gist of that sermon is soothing. 🙂 And I just gotta say that justice is righteouness.

‘God’s balance of justice and mercy will be perfect, a fact that gives me great peace.’ Hey, and there’s Light in a dark world! 🙂

Doug said: I am very ready. You have been speaking about women’s equality in spiritual matters, but I think you are going to have problems being consistent because of the fact that the male who was the only one who brought sin into the world. Surely this proves that men are the only ones to lead in spiritual matters.

I don’t think that Doug has learned to untilize his mental capacity to the fullest. First of all it doesn’t make any sense why male bringing sin into the world can be equated with males leading in spiritual matters. It would make more sense to be equated with males being kept away as far as possible from leading in spiritual things being that Adam paved the way for sin’s entrance. In other words Adam if he were represenative for all males, leads the way into sin, rather than spiritual things. To be a follow of Adam in his foot steps is to bring about sin. Secondly for Doug to think that Adam bringing sin into the world proves anything shows that he does not grasp at what a fact actualy is. If something is proven then it is a fact.

So what’s so inticing about connecting Adam brinning sin into the world to male leadership in the church? What? It’s creepy.

Hi Paula,

I don’t know why any real christian has any excuse other than nuture, culture and below average IQ or mental incapability except maybe for some who are stubborn in nature and don’t want to listen to God. I can’t assume that God doesn’t work with his people’s hearts. Then there’s the money motivator. How many jumped on the band wagon when it started moving in retaliation against CBE, in what the 70’s? And how many are there today for the same reason? But that’s entirely different motive than hating women or feeling superior to them because of male pride.

Maybe that’s what the majority of it is. Male pride. And why? Well look what God said Adam would do to Eve. Does this then mean that most men are born moraly inferior since perhaps they are like Adam wanting power and control over the female? If that’s the case, well that would be a hard one to work out if I were a male. If I were born lacking morality in that area, I’d be mad at God. Maybe it’s something in the male’s make-up or genes that wants to dominate the female? But then at least 40% of males on the planet do not have desire to dominate female, christian, religious, or neither. I donno. I’m just speaking my thoughts…

Paula, I understood and recognized your rage against this injustice right away when I came here to Cheryl’s place, cause I’ve had the same since I came to learn about it existence, which was sometime when I was a teenager. And I’ve felt like nobody (the majority and excluding you) wouldn’t, or doesn’t understand. And it’s been my BIGGEST hang up over the whole issue of male female roles, superiority/inferiority and surely that had to do with my very high moral standing/make-up. I’ve always loved justice and what’s right to the most deepest part of me and hate hatred especialy when it comes from those who associate themselves with Christianity. They were always most important principles to me. What’s life without love, justice, and doing what is right? In prejudice and hate there is none of those things. The Church is NOT God’s dwelling but people seem to believe otherwise because for them it’s about what the church says and teaches and they follow like cattle, er sheep. I donno, maybe because life can be hard most people just want the easier way and so they follow the leaders of the church and what they teach, of which most are not even called by Christ to be pastors and leaders. I doubt most that are in the ‘high places’ in church have been called by Christ to lead his sheep. It would be unrealistic to think or believe so.

Okay Cheryl, maybe I’m just babbling but I feel better having spoken my mind.