House Church Talk - women relieved from active duty
pooletim at hotmail.com
Tue May 4 15:18:10 EDT 2004
I am beginning to understand your position on this issue. I think your
heart is passionate for the Lord. We all have our perspectives that we hold
to that seem to be extreme to others. I have to tell you that I have
home-schooled my children for most of their school years. I have two teenage
daughters that have been recently put into public school. I felt they had
matured enough in the Lord to be trusted. I feel this is really the issue
here and that is TRUST. In my perspective, my authority is absolute and
final as long as they are in my home and dependent on me. In my perspective,
I want them to be able to grow up to choose the right ways of the Lord when
faced with tests the world will throw at them, while still under my
authority, so they can stand on their own. My daughters were both tested
this past year when they were told they had to read and write a report on a
questionable book. They both refused to follow the teachers authority and
were given an alternate assignment because of their own convictions. One
daughter had to sit out of the class while the other class members did the
assignment. I heard about this only after the fact and I can tell you I was
very proud of both of my daughters for taking a stand for righteousness
sake. I TRUST they can continue to make choices so that they don't violate
their conscience. Can we TRUST the Lord in them that he is big enough to
keep them from the evil?
My concern about your position is the fact that submission to authority
can be unhealthy if it involves violating their conscience. My purpose is to
mature them in the Lord to the point of hearing Gods voice and owning their
own conscience. My daughters have been tested so that they know that they
own their convictions. They have impacted their school so that they are
always asked to pray before events and activities and are admired for their
purity in the Lord. Jesus said "My prayer is that you not take them out of
the world, but that you keep them from the evil in the world." Jesus also sa
id," Go and preach the gospel making disciples." I think we need a balance
of making disciples and preaching the Gospel effectively without removing
ourselves from the world and being non-effective for the Gospel for the sake
of Christian perfectionism. Someone said, Preach the Gospel, live your
convictions and don't get them backwards. I think we need a balance of the
Great Commission where we can relate to the world. Paul said, becoming all
things to all men, in other words being able to relate to win souls. I'm
concerned that the world will not be able to relate to some external codes
or the practices that some groups require in Christian perfectionism. If I
understand Paul's writings, he seems to want the church to conform to the
culture ( in head coverings and womens roles in the church) at that time.
The culture of today cannot relate to first century practices and that is
why we need to have a balance for the sake of the Gospel, so we can relate.
I was deep into the shepherding movement back in the 80's because it
seemed so perfectly in order. It appealed to my spirit of perfectionism.
When it came to marriage and other major decisions in life, we all were
required to submit to the elders before anyone could pursue anything. While
counseling is important, it was required to the point where an unhealthy
CO-dependent relationship had developed. When the movement finally
collapsed, there were many that attempted suicide and could not cope with
life's requirements of making their own decisions and their own mistakes.
I left before too much CO-dependency had developed in my own life. The
Lord asked me if he could be TRUSTED to lead and guide or if I was going to
TRUST the arm of the flesh. The visible and externals are always easier to
rely on rather than having faith and TRUST in an invisible God.
One missionary was threatened because he failed to require the converted
natives to put on clothes. The Lord told him not to preach externals because
the converted ones would always depend on their clothes as a evidence of
conversion. Every time they would take their pants off they thought they had
lost their salvation.
As Colossians 2:20 says, Do not handle, touch, taste etc... because they
are based on human commands. The Lords' convictions are all that matters.
The flesh loves appearances (the externals and rules.) If I am to rule my
household, then I will see that they know the Lord and obey his commands. I
cannot accomplish this without the Lord. I can delegate my authority so
that it can be done because I TRUST in his ability to lead and guide. I
don't even require them to obey me if it would violate their conscience.
They have made mistakes and they own them. I have made mistakes as well. If
I require them to do things that violate their own conscience then they
would be able to be violated by anyone, and I have just taught them to be
CO-dependent on others. I don't TRUST man, therefore I don't TRUST myself. I
do however TRUST the Lord to complete what he has started.
You are so correct when you say we all see through a glass darkly. We all
have to remain teachable and adaptable to be as effective as possible. I
have determined to be concerned about the Lords desires, keeping them in
balance, as much as possible. In my opinion your views are extreme to the
point of taking yourself out of the world so as to become non-effective for
the Gospel. I think this is a balance that can be ignored if we don't try to
obey ALL of Gods commands in balance.
In Christ, Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Phillip Lindvall" <lindvall at boldchristianliving.com>
To: <House Church Talk at housechurch.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 2:08 AM
Subject: RE: House Church Talk - women relieved from active duty
> David Anderson <david at housechurch.org> wrote:
> > Congratulations, I say, and thanks to those who participated in the
> > women's silence debate in a respectful and informative manner. Over the
> > years I have seen a number of these conversations turn ugly. Continue to
> > be open-minded about the matter regardless of where you stand. If you
> > feel you have compelling evidence of any kind, please bring it forward.
> > think that all of us are aware that the arguments on both sides are not
> > silly ones.
> > The stakes are high, dear friend. If women are to be silenced in terms
> > prophesy, teaching, and evangelism, God's army has been effectively
> > reduced by more than half on those fronts. And, if only homeschoolers
> > and/or their dads are permitted into leadership roles, then, all but a
> > microscopic number of "leaders" are left standing.
> > Jonathan Lindvall, feel free to clarify your position in the course of
> > time. I can certainly vouch for your excellent character, by the way.
> Hi David. I sure appreciate your gracious and wise encouragements in all
> this. I have been following this interaction for a while, without jumping
> in, for fear of sparking passions. I honor and walk with brothers whose
> opinions vary from mine substantially.
> I don't want to stir up controversies, yet I am willing to bear witness to
> what I think the Lord has allowed me to see. And at your encouragement,
> take the risk here. If it is of the Lord, flesh and blood will not need to
> persuade others.
> This recent controversy seems to have started when someone was concerned
> about the announcement of speakers for the Southern House Church
> They found a nine-year-old article of mine, still on my website
> <http://boldchristianliving.com/content/view/10/25>, on the qualifications
> for leadership in the church, and expressed shock at my perspective.
> They gave a synopsis of a couple of the conclusions, without explaining
> I came to those conclusions. Although this is legitimate, when the
> conclusions don't flow with the mainstream, they will seem extreme. And in
> this case I was portrayed as being extra-biblical, legalistic, and
> judgmental. I hope the following explanation clarifies what it is that I
> suggesting, and that saints can see I am not imposing my understanding on
> Let me clarify a misconception. I didn't say anything about having to have
> been homeschooled to be an elder. (By the way, most of my own education
> in public schools, for whatever that's worth.) What I suggested is that if
> man's children are enrolled in a school where someone else can rule them
> contrary to his wishes, he is not "ruling his OWN house well."
> Similarly, I suggested that if a man's wife is employed by someone who can
> tell her to do something against his wishes, he is not ruling his OWN
> There are countries where tyrannous governments forcibly require children
> be separated from their parents for education. Thankfully, in the United
> States, we have options, including homeschooling. So those who are aware
> this option, but choose to send their children to school anyway, are
> VOLUNTARILY placing them under someone else's control, rather than ruling
> them, themselves.
> Suggesting such things can sound very judgmental. Please know that's not
> intent. I can't judge anyone else according to my light. In the middle
> there were no doubt godly monks who didn't have light regarding certain
> truths we see clearly today. We can't judge them for what they simply
> see. And I honor those who walked with Jesus in the light they had.
> Similarly, there are undoubtedly godly elders who send their children to
> schools where their children are ruled by others. They are walking in the
> light they have. Yet if I sent my children to school, I would be knowingly
> failing to rule my own house well.
> I come from a Pentecostal background, and although I still speak in
> I believe many of my Pentecostal forefathers have unrightly judged others'
> spirituality in light of their own experience. When they say speaking in
> tongues is "the" (as in "only") initial evidence of being filled with the
> Spirit. Yet they have some weight of scriptural precedent in the book of
> Acts to draw this conclusion. But it isn't conclusive enough to be applied
> to everyone. My point is they have some authentic light from the Lord, but
> go over the edge when they judge others by it.
> Similarly I think Protestants are walking in true light when we recognize
> the truth that we are justified by faith, by grace. Yet when we reject the
> possibility of Catholics who don't understand this truth being alive in
> Christ, we are misusing the light the Lord has given us from His word.
> doesn't make the truth any less true. It is just that our flesh has used
> to exalt ourselves and reject others who are walking humbly with the Lord
> the dim light they have (we all see through a glass dimly).
> So let me apply it to myself. I think I see something in scripture. For me
> it is required that I walk in that light. Yet if I judge (reject) others
> don't have that light, I am sinning against them (as well as against God
> even against myself, cutting myself off from them). If I reject groups of
> true saints who, with their elders, don't see the light I think I see
> ruling their own households well, I have fallen into legalism.
> On the other hand, if Pentecostals love and accept those who don't speak
> tongues as brothers and sisters, and lovingly share with them what they
> as important without judging them, that is not legalism. Nor is it
> for Protestants to lovingly share with Catholics the wonderful truth of
> justification by faith. Helping someone see in an area of blindness is not
> being judgmental, as long as we don't reject them for not seeing.
> Similarly, it is not legalistic or judgmental of me to teach what I
> I see in scripture and make a logical application to our day. If a man
> allows his wife to be employed where she can be told to do something by
> employer, contrary to her husband's wishes (work schedule, what to wear,
> to work with, etc.), it seems to me he is not "ruling his household well"
> (or even ruling his household at all). If a man voluntarily enrolls his
> children in a school where they can be told to do things against his
> (who to sit by, when to use the restroom, etc.), it seems to me he is not
> ruling his household well.
> But I have met many godly elders who don't see what I think I see. I am
> denying that they should be elders. They and those who have appointed them
> are walking in the light they have. And I think we can even say God
> On the other hand, when the Lord gives light to someone in an area others
> are in darkness, he has been made a watchman for others. He has an
> obligation to offer what he thinks he sees to those who don't see it. If a
> watchman sees something but neglects to sound the alarm, he will be held
> accountable for the harm others he should have warned come to.
> If they don't believe him or refuse to see it, at least he has been
> faithful. He should certainly check to see if he has sounded the alarm
> clearly (lovingly, in a way that it can easily be received), but he
> need to press them. A watchman doesn't have authority over a city. He only
> tells them what he sees. If his warning is rejected, he need not take it
> personally. It is good for him to even recognize he could have been
> incorrect in what he thought he saw.
> I hope I welcome loving correction. For now, I think I see something in
> Lord that many other saints are apparently missing. I simply want to love
> brothers enough to faithfully sound an alarm about a danger I think I see.
> You can subscribe to the free Bold Christian Living E-mail Newsletter by
> sending a post to <boldchristianliv-subscribe at welovegod.org>.
> God bless you.
> Jonathan Lindvall Lindvall at BoldChristianLiving.com
> Bold Christian Living http://www.BoldChristianLiving.com
> PO Box 820 Voice 559-539-0500
> Springville CA 93265 Fax 559-539-0804
> ...He who has begun a good work in you will complete it... Phil. 1:6
House Church Talk is sponsored by the House Church Network.
House Church Talk has been renamed. These discussions, via the web, now occur at the Radically Christian Cafe.