House Church Talk - speaking
pooletim at hotmail.com
Sat May 15 21:47:11 EDT 2004
Paul says in 14:23 If everyone speaks in tongues and an unbeliever comes in,
will he not judge that you are out of your mind? Paul seems to try to raise
the awairness of the church of how they are failing to relate to the culture
by doing what they wanted without considering what they were doing and how
it appeared to unbelievers. Do you thing Paul could be interested in how we
relate to our culture? If we want to reach the Muslims or Amish, its great
to adapt to head coverings to reach them. Do you think that its possible
that our present American culture could judge some of the practices that we
do as bondage and extreme like Muslims?Is this even a consideration in our
meetings, how does the world view us? I think Paul would rebuke some of us
the same way he did Corinth. The great commision is part of his commands as
well, even though its further down the list than some of our dress codes. Go
figure. In Christ, Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <David at innglory.org>
To: "'House Church Talk'" <House Church Talk at housechurch.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 6:56 AM
Subject: RE: House Church Talk - speaking
> Tim Poole wrote:
> > In My Opinion, I Cor 11:5 Paul has already assumed the
> > right of women to pray or prophecy publicly (11:1-16);
> Yes, women may pray and prophecy, but there is an order that Paul
> desires for believers to follow in this. Women should minister under
> the headship of man. Man is to show the glory of God when he ministers;
> women are to show the glory of the man. Upset this order and we are
> perverting God's order in a similar way to how the homosexual perverts
> God's order by insisting that same sex couples should be allowed to
> I always think of the apostles and the extent they ministered while
> Jesus was still physically there. Jesus was their head. He sent them
> out teaching and preaching, to go into the towns ahead of him,
> proclaiming the gospel, healing the sick, raising the dead. The
> headship of Christ did not prevent them from ministering, but surely we
> understand that when they were in the presence of Christ, they did not
> insist on Christ being silent so that they could minister. In the
> presence of Christ, they were the ones who assumed a more silent and
> submissive role.
> Tim Poole wrote:
> > here he probably is emphasizing the right of women to
> > judge prophecy, something restricted to the male
> > leadership of the church.
> I don't see women being encouraged to judge prophecy. It is one thing
> to utter prophecy, and quite another thing to judge prophecy. I see
> women being free to declare the mind of Christ to the church. Judgment
> might be made, but if there were any disputes in judgment, women should
> be silent while the men hash it out. Women are the weaker vessels and
> should not be subjected to verbal abuse when men are hashing out their
> differences. Women need to be protected and guarded and treated with
> greater respect.
> Tim Poole wrote:
> > As well, women (or men for that matter) shouldn't
> > be disrupting meetings with questions or chatter .
> I agree with you that women should not be allowed to disrupt meetings
> with questions, and Paul is partly addressing this. On the other hand,
> men should be free to "disrupt" meetings so to speak with questions.
> This is indicated by 1 Cor. 14:30, which says that it is the speaker who
> should be quiet when being interrupted by someone sitting by. This is
> not really a disruption when we understand the masculine nature of the
> meetings, but in our feminine culture, such interruptions are almost
> always described as being disruptive.
> We really have only two choices for maintaining order in the meetings.
> Either we adopt the feminine attitude that speakers should be able to
> finish what they want to say without any interruption, or we allow
> interruption and the speakers submit unto the one who is interrupting.
> Our culture is highly feminized and has caused the men to become
> feminine in their attitude. This is how our society seeks to protect
> the women and the men. The problem is that the meetings suffer loss
> when it is the men who must refrain from speaking in these situations.
> God's Holy Word opts for the women being silent and allowing the men to
> interrupt. In other words, men can be men in the church meetings. They
> can be passionate and interrupt one another, and they can be corrective
> and vocal, teaching and instructing one another, and correcting one
> another. The caveat is that in order to protect women as the weaker
> vessel and keep them from being hurt, they should be silent and allow
> their husbands to speak up if necessary. If she is going to object that
> she is put at a disadvantage in learning by not being able to enter the
> heated fray of words, the solution is that she can ask her husband at
> home. This is the proper order that we learn from Torah, which teaches
> us that the woman's desire would be for her husband, and he would rule
> over her.
> Tim Poole wrote:
> > I see coverings in that it was an issue of hair,
> > long for women short for men. A cultural issue.
> If you list on a piece of paper every reason that Paul gives for women
> having long hair and men having short hair, every reason is
> non-cultural. Even his argument that nature teaches us this seems to
> transcend culture, for even in our gender-equal society, more men have
> short hair and more women have long hair, especially among the Godly.
> Why? What does your conscience tell you when you look at a man with
> long hair and at a woman with long hair? What are your thoughts when
> you look at a bald headed man and a bald headed woman? Are the thoughts
> of your heart identical with either situation? Mine aren't. I see long
> hair as glorious on a woman, but the shaved head of a woman is shameful,
> same as Paul's teachings which was in a very different culture. Surely
> his teachings on this are non-cultural or they would not make sense to
> us today.
> Tim Poole wrote:
> > I feel the real issue is insecure men afraid of what
> > their wives might say about them in the meetings,
> > revealing who they really are. Isnt it just old
> > fashioned CONTROL?
> I grant you that many men who are insecure have abused the passages of
> Scripture we have been discussing, and they end up suppressing women and
> keeping them from functioning in their God ordained ministries. But we
> should not think that this is the total issue here. The reasons that
> Paul had for telling women to submit unto men and not to teach in these
> particular situations does not have to do with control at all. It has
> to do with order and encouraging Godly attitudes in the men. When we
> allow aggressive and manly behavior in the meetings, women and children
> who try to participate in this activity may get upset and hurt. We have
> two choices: 1) emasculate the men and feminize the meetings so that
> they are meetings suitable for full participation by women and children,
> or 2) instruct the women and children to be quiet during these parts of
> the meetings so that men don't feel compelled that they must be quiet so
> as not to give a woman a bloody nose so to speak. Either the men have
> to tone it down and be quiet, or the women need to be quiet in these
> situations. The Bible urges us to have the women be quiet and let the
> men be vociferous and go at it with each other in the spirit of love and
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
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.