House Church Talk - Re: House Church Talk Digest, Vol 3, Issue 121

[Claire Bennett]

Thanks Bruce.  Looking at scripture and looking at what I saw and back to
scripture, asking questions and being stonewalled is what led me to
housechurch.  Yes, women were the first sent ones, an angel of the Lord told
them to teach men!  They gave men instructions!
@housechurch.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of House Church Talk  digest..."
>
> > Good points being made...  Yes I believe what you say is correct...
>
> and what about the first Christian "sent ones"?
>
> Matt 28:5-7
> 5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are
> looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just
> as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and
tell
> his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into
> Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."
> NIV
>
> Sorry they were met w/ the stalwarts skepticism...
>
> Sadder yet, still being met today w/ similar doubts, by comparable
brothers,
> of the Sister's valid and heavenly prescribed ministries...
>
> JimP - kentucky
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Claire Bennett" <clairebnntt at cox.net>
>
> Subject: House Church Talk -  Re: Were women silent during the first house
> churchmeeting?
>
>
> > I am going to assume that the first house church meeting was Pentecost.
> > There were women among those who gathered waiting for the Holy Spirit.
> > Since women were among those speaking in tongues, proclaiming the word
of
> > the Lord, I am assuming this is considered speaking in the church, and
not
> > only speaking in the church, preaching to unbelievers.
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:41:18 -0400
> From: "Bruce Woodford" <bwood4d at hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: House Church Talk -  Re: Were women silent during the first house
> churchmeeting?
> To: House Church Talk  at housechurch.org
> Message-ID: <BAY10-F102zgWJEl3Nd00033edb at hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Hi Claire,
>
> You write:"I am going to assume that the first house church meeting was
> Pentecost. There were women among those who gathered waiting for the Holy
> Spirit. Since women were among those speaking in tongues, proclaiming the
> word of the Lord, I am assuming this is considered speaking in the church,
> and not only speaking in the church, preaching to unbelievers."
>
> You are absolutely right (and no need of any assumptions either!)!  One
> needs only to read Acts 1 and 2 to see these facts as plain as day. And
all
> of this took place right in the presence of the apostles who were trained
by
> the Lord Jesus, Himself!
>
> As you read through the Book of Acts and list all the specific recorded
> events of house church gatherings, you will find that the vocal
> participation of women was a very common occurence!
>
> As you also list all the recorded events of whole church gatherings or
> gatherings of city churches in one place, you will also notice that the
> vocal participation of women is never once mentioned in such gatherings!
>
> If one simply observes what scripture actually says (instructions) and
what
> scripture actually records (events) and does not try to force scripture
into
> one's contrived mold or system of interpretation, and if one is willing to
> obey whatever they find there,  God will continually teach such a person,
> His ways.
>
> So keep on observing, keep on noting the relationships between
instructions
> and practice and keep a willing attitude to obey whatever you find
> regardless of what others may think or do, and you will find that you are
in
> line for great blessing!!!
>
> Was it not the Lord Jesus, Himself,  who said, "He that hath my
commandments
> and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me and he that loveth me shall be
> loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him."
> John 14:21
>
> Your brother in the service of the Best of Masters,
> Bruce
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE*
>

>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:38:44 -0400
> From: "Bruce Woodford" <bwood4d at hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: House Church Talk -  Re: Were women silent during the first
> housechurchmeeting?
> To: House Church Talk  at housechurch.org
> Message-ID: <BAY10-F62LnqflV1Hav0002f6a3 at hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Hi RJ,
>
> You wrote the following to Claire:"I am curious about part of your
message.
> I would like to know where the women speaking in tongues at Pentecost came
> from?  Are you saying the women in the crowd were speaking in tongues?
>
> I have read Acts Chapter 2 in several different versions and I just can't
> find scripture to back this up.  Am I missing something?  It there a
> different reference in a Pauline letter?"
>
> Brother, the context of Acts 2 is chapter one. Follow the personal nouns
and
> proniubs through the chapter in order to find out who "they all" in 2:1 is
> referring to.
>
> >From 1:4 to 1:13 it is "the apostles". Then in 1:14 we read "these all"
(the
> apostles) continued with one accord in prayer and supplication WITH THE
> WOMEN, AND MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS, AND WITH HIS BRETHREN.
>
> The next time this group uis refrred to it is no longer just "the
apostles"
> but it is now "the disciples". It is not now just eleven but "abouit one
> hundred and twenty".
>
> So when you get to Acts 2:1 and read "When the day of Pentecost was fully
> come, THEY WERE ALL WITH ONE ACCORD IN ONE PLACE."   Who were "they all"?
> Just 11 apostles? or was it about 120 disciples includimng women?
>
> Who was it who was filled with the spirit (verse 4) and spoke with
tongues?
>
> 2:13 seems to indicate it was "these men", but the Greek word here is NOT
> the word for "males" but simply "they"!  But the clincher is when Peter
gets
> up to speak and his text is Joel chapter 2.
>
> He tells the crowd that "THIS" is "THAT" which Joel prophesied 2:16. And
> what was that?
>
> Verses 17 and 18 tell us clearly:  "Your sons AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL
> PROPHESY....and on my servants AND ON MY HANDMAIDENS I WILL POUR OUT IN
> THOSE DAYS OF MY SPIRIT AND THEY SHALL PROPHESY."
>
> Does this make it clear where we get the idea that women spoke in tongues
in
> the house church meeting in Acts 2?
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Your brother in Christ,
> Bruce
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 
>

>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:45:47 -0400
> From: "Bruce Woodford" <bwood4d at hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: House Church Talk -  Re: Were women silent during the
> firsthousechurchmeeting?
> To: House Church Talk  at housechurch.org
> Message-ID: <BAY10-F912B0DdqtXGL000090c2 at hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> OOPS!!!
>
> Sorry I forgot to proof read that prevbious post before sending it! "Nouns
> and proniubs" should be "nouns and pronouns"!!!
>
> Bruce
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE*
>

>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:53:23 -0400
> From: rebelfire at juno.com
> Subject: Re: House Church Talk -  Re: Were women silent during the first
> housechurchmeeting?
> To: House Church Talk  at housechurch.org
> Message-ID: <20040426.221154.3708.0.rebelfire at juno.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Thanks Bruce.
>
> Like I said, I am not in the silence camp.  I was just wondering if
> Claire would explain her position.
> Looks like you beat her to the punch.
>
> RJ
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:38:44 -0400 "Bruce Woodford" <bwood4d at hotmail.com>
> writes:
> > Hi RJ,
> <snip>
> > Does this make it clear where we get the idea that women spoke in
> > tongues in
> > the house church meeting in Acts 2?
> >
> > Hope this helps!
> >
> > Your brother in Christ,
> > Bruce
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:17:31 -0400
> From: "Bruce Woodford" <bwood4d at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: House Church Talk -  Look who Jesus Chose
> To: House Church Talk  at housechurch.org
> Message-ID: <BAY10-F1146HjqMw5ma0001b454 at hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> In response to my former post relative to who Paul was addressing in I Cor
> 14, you wrote:"Bruce, Using your logic, then Paul rarely addressed the
> females in any church, as he in most every case I have found, the same
Greek
> word was used "adelphos" for brethren. That would mean, that when Paul
> wrote, "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of
his
> might," then only the men were to be strong, putting on the whole armor of
> God, praying always with all prayer and supplication with all the saints."
>
> You have raised an excellent and thoughtful question which I knew would be
> asked after I wrote that last post, and it deserves a thoughtful answer.
(I
> hope you will be willing to pardon the length of the following!)
>
> Let's deal first with the good example you have quoted from Ephesians 6.
> Does the fact that Paul addresses "the brothers" mean that the sisters are
> excluded from the application of the instructions given?  Not at all!
> According to the text, who was to be praying with all prayer and
> supplication?  Brethren were!  But they were to be doing it "with all the
> saints"!!  All the saints certainly includes the sisters as welll!   Then
by
> extension we may also ask, "Who was to be strong in the Lord and putting
on
> the whole armor of God??   The brethren were! But they were to be doing it
> "with all the saints"!   So we see that when males are the particular
> addressees of certain instructions, it does NOT mean that sisters are
> excluded from the application of those instructions, have nothing to learn
> from those instructions or that the instructions do not apply to them at
> all!
>
> Rather this mode of address, i.e. "brethren", or "men (literally males)
and
> brethren"  as in Acts 1:16
> 2:29 ; 13:26,38;  and 15:7,13  did not mean that no women were present,
that
> the speakers were rudely ignoring the women who were there or that what
they
> said had nothing whatsoever to do with women!  Rather, that males had the
> PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY to respond to what was being said!
>
> Let us consider some other examples:
> In I Timothy 2 there are some clear instructions to men (males) and
> women(females).  In verse 8, Paul writes:" I will therefore that men
(MALES
> ) pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting."
Does
> this mean that women are NOT to pray everywhere?  Does this mean that it
is
> alright for women to pray without holy hands, or that it is alright if
women
> pray WITH wrath and doubting???   Of course not!!!   But the PRIMARY
> RESPONSIBILITY for this instruction lies upon the males!
>
> Let us go on to verses 9-11 where the women (females) are addressed. Do
> these verses mean that men are excluded from obedience to these
> instructions?  Is it proper for males to be adorned in immodest apparel??
> with braided hair??  with gold, pearls or costly array???  Is it proper
for
> males NOT to be adorned with good works??  Of course not!  But the PRIMARY
> RESPONSIBILITY for this instruction lies upon the sisters.
>
> When women are instructed to learn in silence (literally quietness) with
all
> subjection, does this mean that this instruction has nothing to do with
men
> and that they should be noisy and boisterous and disruptive when another
is
> teaching??   Of course not!!!  Simply that the PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY for
> this instruction lies upon the sisters.
>
> Verse 12 is a very poor translation! "Usurp authority over" is translated
> from one Greek word "AUTHENTEO" which is the Greek word from which we get
> our English "authentic"! It  is a compound word comprised of two other
> words: AUTOS or "self" and HENTES  "a worker".   It thus means "to act or
to
> work of one's self".   When Paul wrote, "I suffer not a woman to teach or
to
> act of herself in relation to a man", does this mean that it is perfectly
> normal and commendable for men to teach and work  OF THEMSELVES, i.e,.
that
> their teachings and their works OUGHT TO BE
> SELF INITIATED???  Of course not!!! It simply means that the primary
> responsibility for obedience to this instruction lies upon sisters
relative
> to their teaching and actions towards men!
>
> An excellent example of this very point is found in the life and testimony
> of the Lord Jesus, the very Son of God, Himself. See His own words in John
> 5:19,20: "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say
unto
> you, The Son CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF, but what he seeth the Father do:
for
> what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the
> Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that  himself doeth: and
> he will  shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel."
>
> It was brother Henry Blackaby who first brought the truth of this
scripture
> to my attention. In his very excellent study series, "Experincing God:
> Knowing and doing the will of God", Henry pointed out that even the Son of
> God, the Lord  Jesus,  NEVER EVER initiated anything of Himself!!!
Rather,
> He lived His life in tune and in communion with His Father, and whatever
he
> saw the Father doing, where ever He saw the Father working, He just got
> involved in what the Father was up to!
>
> That truth really rattled my cage and revolutionized my whole view of
> "Christian ministry"!  For years I had been busy, busy, busy planning this
> program, organizing that outreach, trying to get lost people saved and
> trying to get Christians to live like Christians etc and at the end of the
> day I was always so frustrated, uptight, and saw so little real fruit for
> such an expenditure of hard work and planning!!!!   My problem was that I
> thought that if anything was going to happen, I had to "get the ball
> rolling"!!!  I really didn't think God had very much on His agenda in my
> particular part of the world.  So I'd plan and organize and manipulate and
> then PRAY THAT GOD WOULD GET INVOLVED IN ALL OF MY WONDERFUL PLANS!!!
>
> But as Henry shared this truth with us on His video series, the thought
went
> through my head, "WOODFORD!!! Who in the world do you think you are are
> anyway???!!!  If the very Son of God never initiated His own works, WHO DO
> YOU THINK YOU ARE TRYING TO INITIATE YOURS???!!!
>
> Of the seven realities of experiencing God, Henry had already shared the
> truths that
> (1) God is ALWAYS at work around you.
> (2) GOD PURSUES a continuing love relationship with you that is real and
> personal.
>
> But now it was the third one that came crashing through my consciousness
and
> brought such liberty as it revolutionized how I looked at ministry!  That
> truth was expressed by Henry in this way:
> (3) GOD INVITES YOU  to become involved with Him IN HIS WORK!!
>
> What a relief and joy it brought to my wife and I as we began to realize
> that we no longer had to invite God to become involved with us in our
work,
> but rather to get to know Him and respond to His invitations to become
> involved in the work that He was already doing in the lives of people
right
> around us!   It was the massive difference between self inititiated work
or
> teaching and God inititiated work or teaching!
>
> Please forgive me for such a long digression from I Cor.14!   But what I
am
> trying to express is that certainly the  instructions in 14:34 and 35 have
a
> direct bearing on sisters in whole church meetings!  However, THE PRIMARY
> RESPONSIBILITY for those instructions DOES NOT LIE UPON THE SISTERS!   IT
> LIES SQUARELY ON THE  SHOULDERS OF THE BROTHERS!
>
> The instruction: "LET YOUR WOMEN KEEP SILENCE IN THE CHURCHES", does NOT
> mean that the primary  responsibility is for sisters to be tight lipped in
> these large gatherings! Rather it means that the brothers are TO SHOULDER
> THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO COME PREPARED IN HEART AND MIND TO HAVE SOMETHING
TO
> CONTRIBUTE THAT WILL BE EDIFYING TO ALL IN THE GATHERING, SO THAT IT WILL
> NOT BE NECESSARY FOR SISTERSþ'3 HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING!
>
> The instruction, "If they (the sisters) will learn anything, let them ask
> their husbands at home..." does not mean that the primary responsibility
is
> upon the sisters to be seen and not heard in the whole church gathering,
but
> that they can chatter all they want once they get in their own kitchens!!!
> Rather, it means that as they listen attentively to the praise, the
worship,
>   the prophesying etc in the large city gathering, spiritually minded
> sisters are going to do a lot of
> thinking, meditating and that new thoughts are going to be introduced to
> their thought process and that they are going to have many questions to
ask
> because they will be intent on learning more!  So where does the PRIMARY
> RESPONSIBILITY LIE??  It lies squarely on the shoulders of those husbands!
> They are not to dismiss such earnest questions as unimportant "woman's
> talk", but rather they are charged with the responsibility to "let their
> women ask those questions"!  The natural force of all this is that the
> husbands had better be prepared with solid answers or at least be prepared
> to find them by dilgent study of the scriptures!!!
>
> So it is my conviction that such "gender specific" terms as "brethren", or
> "sisters", "men" Or "women" are NOT used in scripture to set the one in
> opposition to the other, but rather to emphasize how each is necessary and
> complementary to the other!!
>
> I realize and apologize that this has been a loooong post! I trust you
will
> forgive, if there has been some little light shed.  If that is NOT the
case,
> please let me know and I will try to do better another time!
>
> Your brother in Christ,
> Bruce
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 
>

>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:46:01 -0400
> From: forwarded <forwarded at housechurch.org>
> Subject: House Church Talk -  5th ST Conference July 22-25, 2004
> To: "House Church Talk" <House Church Talk  at housechurch.org>,
> <ntcp at housechurch.org>
> Message-ID: <E1BIKTw-0006pv-00 at snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
> YOU ARE INVITED TO THE 5TH SEARCHING TOGETHER CONFERENCE
> July 22-25, 2004:
>
> "DISCOVERING NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH LIFE IN THE 21ST CENTURY"
>
> Last year we had a wonderful conference on "Last Things," where for the
> first time in America all major views of prophecy were represented and
> evaluated. This year we want to learn from the Lord's servants more about
> body-life and the "one-another" perspectives of the New Testament.
>
> FORMAT: This will be an "open" conference, in the sense that the speakers
> are not predetermined. If the Lord has put something on your heart (in
> line with our broad theme) that you would like to present, you are
> welcome to come. All we ask is that you let us know well in advance what
> your topic is, so that we can structure the sessions. Each session will
> consist of 45 min. by the speaker, and 45 min. for questions and
> evaluation by those present of what was taught.
>
>  We wish we could, but we are not able to remunerate those who wish to
> speak. Everyone comes at their own expense.
>
> SUBJECT MATTER: At this point we know that Alan Allison from Spokane, WA,
> will be speaking on "What Does It Mean to Be A 'Member' of Christ's Body
> Where You Live?"; Cliff Bjork will be exploring crucial NT body dynamics
> related to 'unity' and our understanding of Scripture; Jon Zens will deal
> with some foundational spiritual qualities necessary in order for an
> assembly to get started on the right foot, and the importance of working
> through the tough times together (conflict resolution).
>
> Many other areas will be covered.  Please join us!
>
> DATE: July 22-25, 2004. The Conference will start as follows:
> registration will begin at 3pm, Thursday 7/22; there will be dinner at
> 5:30pm; the first meeting will be at 7pm. There will be meetings Friday &
> Saturday. On Sunday 7/25, we will have two meetings, and the Conference
> will end at noon.
>
> PLACE: We will be gathering at the same spot we did last year, the ARC
> (Association Retreat Center), in Osceola, WI (www.arc-aflc.org). It is 12
> miles S.E. of the ST Bookstore in Taylors Falls, MN. Jon & Dotty Zens
> live on the grounds of the ARC.
>
> COST: If you stay at the ARC, the cost for 3 nights' lodging (Thursday,
> Friday, Saturday) and 8 meals is $100.00. If you stay at local motels,
> you can purchase individual meals at the ARC for $6.00/ea. If you stay in
> the ARC dorms, you must bring your own linen. You do not have to pay
> ahead of time, but you must let us know that you are coming. All payments
> must be made to ST, not to the ARC. Payment can be made by Visa,
> Mastercard or Discover.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:00:26 -0500
> From: "jim pierceall" <jpierceall at brtc.net>
> Subject: Re: House Church Talk -  women & house churches and me
> To: "House Church Talk" <House Church Talk  at housechurch.org>
> Message-ID: <005901c42c5f$fe25c560$c36a21d0 at yourpa86z1i3g7>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Claire,   Just remembering out loud....  based on what you shared
> below...
>
> <<I was told that some people would not participate in various hc lists
> because women did - they considered it women not being silent.  The women
> from these groups don't participate on these lists, likely their husbands
> disallow them from being corrupted by women like me :)>>
> -----------
>
> Jesus takes the initiative and pursues the woman at the well (John 4)...
>
> she goes and blabs it...  (that's kaintuckeese for evangelizing)
>
> male disciples later learn of her efforts, and offer her classes in
> "theological correctness"....   <smile>
>
> -------  just funn'en w/ ya's-------
>
> I suspect illegitimacy is often tucked away and hidden under the mask of
> "theological correctness"...  don't ya think?
>
> I also suspect the root of that, always revolves around "control
issues"....
>
> JimP - kentucky
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> House Church Talk  mailing list
> House Church Talk  at housechurch.org
> https://housechurch.org/mailman/listinfo/House Church Talk 
>
>
> End of House Church Talk  Digest, Vol 3, Issue 121
> ***************************************