AssemblyBoard

I think it's time we open this thread.  Feel free to expound, preach, teach, and or prophesy concerning this theme.  For those of you who want to jump right in there with your "assembled" (or shall i say "assemblied")  presuppositions prepare for a roast.  I would also like to hear some opinions about the Christian marriage relationship.      

Oog!  Woman clean my cave.  Cook my meals.  Keep good and quiet.  Go to Meeting.  That my kind of woman! >:(

Let me recommend a tape by Stuart Brisco,

on Ephesians 5.

Shouldn't be too hard to find.  I know they have it on the Calvary Chapel webpage.

Brent

Jim,
 
  read my post on the headcoverings thread and let me know what you think. I also welcome other comments.

                                           peace,
                                                Nate

Here's one for ya ... I'll admit I'm VERY bothered as I hear women are unable to contribute to the x-assembly "evaluation" discussions.  That immediately triggered the RED "Business as Usual" sirens.

My thoughts?  Well, first this doesn't seem like a "when the whole church be gathered together" type function.  Actually, it doesn't seem like a church function at all, since you're trying to decide if this IS a God-raised gathering.

Okay -- and here's the kicker -- what the the CLEAR reason Paul stated for women to keep silent??  Because it was Woman who was deceived in the garden and not Man.

GUESS WHAT MEN ??????  WE'VE ALL BEEN DECEIVED THIS TIME!!  And we can't, as Adam tried (and as David and Betty try), blame it on our wives!!  

"But Lord, it's the woman you gave me ...."  ... IT AIN'T GONNA WORK THIS TIME!!!!

Maybe you should be listening to the concerns of EVERYONE!!!!!!

Thank you Ken,

  this really really  bugged me about the assembly. We get so caught up  in the "heavenly vision" or Biblical pattern for a marital relationship or any men-women relationships that we miss out on the gifts of women and the fulness of worshipping God with them. They will tell you that the marital relationships are a model of christ and his church. They will tell you that you are breaking with a clear Biblical understanding,sure to rot in hell, heretic, lesbian, liberal, lier, deciever, etc.
 I mean, c'mon now people, most folks once thought slavery had a pretty clear Biblical justification (the curse of Ham,  and other verses)-- the abolitionists were actually in the minority as to how they interpreted the Bible on this point. And so it goes with this issue. But I am pleased to see so many men  breaking free of those narrow assembly
confines...it gives me hope. And I have found it very odd that some of the most vigorous defenders  of this biblical "model" have been women. marinate on that for a minute.
                                            Nate

Okie dokie,  I can't keep my mouth shut on this topic.  I'm curious how many men out there have been given insight, opinions, wives raised issues or questions about what we're all seeing right now,  how many spoke up over the yrs. at home and were dismissed????  Nothing like talking to a brick wall???  Ken & I talked last yr. at great lengths about his & my concerns we've had and God forgive us both for not communicating with each other deeper than just on the surface.  Many of us have had thoughts, questions, etc. yet dared not open your mouth to pose them.

Consider how far women have come in the past two thousand years since the N.T. was written.  Was there a reason for "submission"  2000 yaers ago?  Most likely, for the reaason that women lacked education and the chance for a prominent position in society.  So men, being educated, were the ones responsible to make the rational decision making in the marriage relationship.  Consider now, as Ken pointed out, men are just as likely to be decieved, with the grusome example of this "ministry", and women are essentially equal in the sense of education and rational decision making.  Now, certain chauvinists would say "oh, women make their decisions based emotion and feeling, while men base it on logistics and rationality".  From what I've seen, men in decision making situations, for example leaders, even more dangerous vices can come into play, mainly pride and egotism.  So we all have our faults.    

Hello out there!

It was women, and their courage, that got us out of this mess!

The men stood by like idiots and let George and Betty carry on.  They let David coninue to lead, and for whatever reason hid his abuseive nature.  They actively silenced scores of people who wanted to tell the truth.

The women finally had enough.  Starting with Rachel and Judy, and now the women who George abused, they have blown the lid off the cauldron of evil that George has been brewing.  They had to do it, because the men were TOTAL COWARDS AND YES MEN!!!!

We never listened to the women, (except Betty) and we found ourselves in a fine kettle of fish!

Should women teach or have authority in the Church?  NO!!!
Should men hear what they have to say?  YES!!!!

I have learned something in all of this.

Betty taught and had authority in the Assembly, in clear violation of the Word of God.

If someone asks you what the passages mean, where it says that women should keep silent, and not have authority over men in the Church, tell them about Betty and the Assembly!  

We are living proof of why Paul warned us about having women lead and teach!

I listen to my wife now, and I am glad of it.

Brent

Jim,
First of all, let me say that I agree with much of what has been said in this thread... I see how women can be trivialized, or their voices ignored to the great detriment of a marriage or church.
I would like to make sure, though, that we do not begin cutting out pieces of the bible, or dismissing things as being only historically significant.. we are then in dangerous ground - for where would we stop?  I particularly question the idea that the biblically defined roles for a husband and wife do not apply anymore.  (is that what you are suggesting?)  I think one thing that we must consider, is that the reason for a wife to submit to her husband has much more to do with a picture of Christ and his church than with the deception of Eve in the garden.  God has set this order - I do not think, however qualified and wise women are, that this order should be ignored. (and that goes for the church as well.)
Realize too, that the passage in 1 Tim 2 was written at least 6000 years after Eve, and it mentions that as a reason for women not to take the lead in the church.  It doesn't seem that time had changed God's order.
Finally, I would pose this practical question... if we did not follow the biblical order for the man to lead in a marriage.. what would you propose to do in a dissagreement with man and wife - ultimately, decisions must be made.. you can't always wait for unanimity.
Joseph R

Thanks,  Joe.  I like what you have to say,  I'm just challenging certain presuppositions we have had, and figuring out what the Bible has to say.  Maybe you can elaborate on this order that you are referring to.  Do you have specific verses for this?  Another question i have is regarding women prophesying.  In I Cor. 14, Paul says that "each one" implying women as well as men, are permitted to prophesy.  We see this displayed in Acts by certain daughters.  In what manner, then, are these sisters ought to prophesy?  Out of the church?  Then where would that be?  Perhaps,  prophesying to me is not teaching, or necesarily usurping authority over the gathering.  And perhaps, in these "assembly practice evaluation meetings" sisters should be allowed to speak.  I think they have a lot more to say, based on their experience, walk with Lord, and things they have seen, than say a recently baptized junior teen brother who is allowed to speak at these meetings.  To me,  this situation represents straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, where the big picture is not being considered.  

I don't know The Assembly's stance on women and the church, this isn't 100% Assembly-related, but...  It's dangerous any time anyone takes scripture out of its context.  I was a snot-nosed intellectual atheist at the time the Southern Baptists freaked out the nation with the re-affirmation of Eph5.  Oh, I was snide.  

Then I came to faith, and learned more.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Respect the spiritual leader of the home, the man.  This is to wives.  When he makes a decision, it's to be respected.  This calls to mind another thread here where there's discussion of spiritual discernment, or "judgment."  The wife should have taken great care, and great time, getting to know the man she chose as a husband before becoming his wife.

But we continue:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Husbands are required to love their wives like Jesus loves His church.  This is a monstrous calling, in my mind.  The wife has it easy, if she's taken care in her choosing.  A husband has to be willing to die for his wife!  He has to love her AS he loves himself.  Wow.  

This is where inequity can come into play, I believe.  Everyone hangs on the "submit to your husbands" part, but doesn't understand that, if husbands are godly, are loving their wives with their whole heart, are willing to DIE for them, then submitting to this man should be easy.

The high standards on both sides create the balance!

(oh, p.s. - I was very humbled on the day I learned what the whole "submission" thing really was!)

(p.p.s.  Re: 1Cor14, remember that the historical context for this portion of the letter to Corinth was that their church services had become a free-for-all mess.  Paul was trying to restore some order.  This, of course, doesn't mean "disregard 1Cor14:34."  But also, 1Cor14:26 begins a commentary on speaking in tongues and prophesying, and the paragraph immediately preceding 1Cor14:34 continues along the same vein.  Some thinking is that women were being openly disruptive during the services, and Paul was reminding them sternly that they were not to lead, including prophesying and speaking in tongues.)

Brent --

I'm thinking Scripturally maybe you shouldn't let the women post on the BB.

After all, we men are the ones who aren't easily deceived by the Liar.

I'M JUST KIDDING LADIES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for deception, I don't think that in the case of the Geftakys Affair, et al, the men were deceived any more than the women.  In the case of Judy, tho' she finally came to her senses, she was deceived every bit as much or maybe more, than David (he was just plain wacky).  We have evidence of this with many other women, including Betty and Rachel, as well.

Brent, when you say, "It was women, and their courage, that got us out of this mess! The men stood by like idiots and let George and Betty carry on.", you are being overly modest and ignoring the fact that many women stood by also.  It was not just women (Rachel & Judy in particular) who were courageous, but men like you as well.

As for me, I don't look at my 24 years in it so much as being deceived, but rather being, as Brent put it, "an idiot". (I think there's a difference.)  Beware, lest as John M. intimated, we men become weenies.

I hate to put this out here because I know I will get flamed as a heretic. So if you must call me a heretic, say I'm in error, please do so. But then please give me an explanation for these scriptures. I do not agree with the author that the only way slavery ended was through secular influence. But again, check these scriptures out and then tell me how "literally" we should take the Bible about the submission of women.
                                         peace,
                                               Nate

PS Brent, I have to respectfully disagree with you that the problem of the assemblies was a women in leadership. I attend a church where females ministered and held authority and I they had a healty embodiment of Christs life. But read on!

There is no morality outside of the Holy Bible! We hear this cliché  repeated ad nauseam by Bible believers. But is the Bible itself morally flawed? Take, for example, the institution of human slavery. Could anything be more immoral than the buying and selling of fellow human beings into a life of involuntary servitude? What does the Bible have to say about it? Well, we'll see. But first, let us briefly review the history of slavery in America.

The importation of African slaves into the New World began shortly after Columbus’ famous “discovery” in 1492. In 1517 the Bishop of Las Casas, a high official in the Roman Catholic Church, encouraged immigration to the New World by permitting Spaniards to import twelve Negroes each2. So Christianity and African slaves were introduced into the New World at about the same time. In what was later to become the United States of America it begin in 1619 when twenty Africans were unloaded from a Dutch ship at Jamestown, Virginia and sold into slavery3. From these humble beginnings the slave trade blossomed into a hugely profitable venture.

Many of our revered founding fathers were slave owners. George Washington, the father of our country, owned slaves as did the great Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. Patrick Henry, the great orator who coined the famous slogan, “Give me liberty or give me death,” was, ironically enough, a slave owner. The slaver trade was recognized as a legitimate commercial enterprise, and slave markets operated openly. The rights of slave owners were protected by law while the slave, of course, had no rights. Although President Lincoln's famous Emancipation Proclamation became effective on January 1,1863, slavery did not officially end in this country until the thirteenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution was ratified in 1865.

Slavery was legal in the United States for almost two hundred and fifty years. Why so long? Isn’t this a Christian nation founded on God’s word, the Holy Bible? That’s what many Christians tell me. Well, if that’s so, maybe that’s where the rub comes in because the Bible not only condones slavery, it actually encourages that cruel institution and has, in fact, been effectively used to promote and preserve it. Here, for example is a quote from Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy4, "It (slavery) was established by decree of Almighty God and is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments from Genesis to Revelation."

God approves of slavery. In Exodus 21:1-6 he sets forth the guidelines for the buying, selling and treatment of slaves. He says that if a male slave marries, his wife and children shall remain with the master when the slave departs because technically speaking they belong to the master. Now if the slave is imprudent enough to protests because he loves his wife and children God tells the master to, "Take an awl and thrust it through his earlobe unto the door." This is all repeated in Deut. 15:17 accept here it says, "Do likewise to your maid slaves." In Exodus 21:7-9 God even instructs men how they are to go about selling their daughters into slavery.

Concerning family values, in Joel 3:8 God warns that, “I will sell your sons and your daughters to the Judians, and they shall in turn sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off.” In case you are still unconvinced, try 1 Tim. 6:1-2; “Let slaves regard their masters as worthy of all honor ." Matthew 10:24 and John 13:16 remind us that slaves are never better than their masters. Women take note that in Titus 2:9-10 slaves are ordered to, “Be submissive to your master and give satisfaction in every respect." Also check Eph. 6:5 and Col. 3:22 which say, “Slaves obey your master." Of the venerated Ten Commandments, numbers four and ten recognize and, therefore, give tacit approval to slavery. In fact, neither the Old or New Testament contains an outright condemnation of slavery.

What did Jesus have to say about slavery? Well, in the cherished Sermon of the Mount, allegedly given by him and recognized as a prescription for Christian living, the institution of slavery, so prevalent at the time, is never mentioned. However, in Matthew 8 Jesus heals the Roman centurion's slave while (v10) praising the centurion for his exemplary faithfulness. Why didn't Jesus seize this opportunity to condemn slavery and forbid it? But the most astounding pro-slavery statement in the Bible is made by Jesus himself in Matthew 10:24-25. Here he not only reminds slaves that they are never above their master, he actually recommends that they strive to be like him. Throughout the gospels Jesus ignores countless opportunities to condemn slavery. Doesn't this amount to an endorsement of that infamous institution?

What are some other Bible commentaries concerning slavery? Peter, Jesus' favorite disciple, directs slaves to obey and fear their masters without question, even if he is cruel and unjust (1 Peter 2:18). This directive is repeated in Ephesians 6:5. In Exodus 21:26-27 and Proverbs 29:19 God tells the masters how to punish their slaves. In Leviticus 25:44-46 God instructs his chosen people on how to treat their slaves. Here he sets a more lenient standard for the Israelite slaves than for those who are not Israelites. But, God is not totally without a sense of justice because in Exodus 21:20-21 he says that if the master beats a slave to death, he shall be punished. But, if the severely beaten slave lingers on for a day or two, the master is off the hook. God says in Exodus 21:28-32 that if an ox gores a slave, the owner shall give their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. In Deuteronomy 20:13-14 God tells the Israelites what they should do with the inhabitants of a concurred city, "Whereas the men must be killed, the women and children are to be taken as slaves."

While the Bible may be morally correct in some cases, it's unrelenting endorsement of slavery is certainly immoral. It is the secular state, not the Bible, which we have to thank for ending slavery. Also, it is the secular state, not the church, which stands as the guarantor of freedom and human rights. The truth is that human rights were (and are being) achieved today not because of the Bible but in spite of it.
_______________________________________________

1 Compiled by Louis W. Cable

I don't think it is the bible that is morally flawed it is the people who try to apply it.  People are flawed. I'm not prepared to say the bible is.

Vines expository:

Deceit:  (akin to apatao -- to cheat, deceive, beguile)
That which gives a false impression whether by appearance, statement or influence.

Beguile:  Used in context:  the influence of sin, of self-deception, of evil men who cause divisions, of deceitful teachers

Websters New Collegiate Dictionary:

Beguile:  1)  to lead by deception  2)  Hoodwink, cheat, to deprive by guile
   3) to while away, esp by some agreeable occupation  4)  to please or persuade by the use of wiles

guile:  deceitful cunning

Deceive:  To be false to; to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
syn: mislead, delude, beguile

Men, we WERE deceived (watch em squirm .....)

We were "intimidated" into giving??

No, "Malone", we were "deceived" as to where the money was going.

My response to Nate’s post and quote from Cable:

“You are mistaken, not understanding the scriptures, or the power of God.” Mt 22:29
The word mistaken is Greek  ‘planao’, which means to drift, go astray. God describes our unstable nature ‘as sheep who have gone astray’. The previous verse applies to the misapplied pop culture interpretation that the Bible and its followers are somehow responsible for the wicked perpetuation of human rights sins such as slavery. This is no more true than saying because Jesus references divorce, he approves or condones it, see Mt 19. The Bible did not condone either slavery or divorce, but it regulated it. In the Hebrew nation, The guidelines were not to enslave a Hebrew, but to set him free in the seventh year, Ex. 21:2. It is true that the heathen nations around Israel were not released in the seventh year (all of these nations practiced not only slavery but also human sacrifice and temple prostitution), yet in the jubilee year (every fifty years) all slaves were set free, see Lev. 25:10-17. The same passage forbids oppression and abuse of slaves, Hebrew and otherwise.



“God approves of slavery. In Exodus 21:1-6 he sets forth the guidelines for the buying, selling and treatment of slaves. He says that if a male slave marries, his wife and children shall remain with the master when the slave departs because technically speaking they belong to the master. Now if the slave is imprudent enough to protests because he loves his wife and children God tells the master to, "Take an awl and thrust it through his earlobe unto the door." This is all repeated in Deut. 15:17 accept here it says, "Do likewise to your maid slaves." In Exodus 21:7-9 God even instructs men how they are to go about selling their daughters into slavery.”

Response: The provision in Ex. 21 is the law of the bondservant. IF a servant came to the master with a wife and children, he was allowed and commanded to leave with his wife and children. That is not pointed out in the above statement. Be careful of the verb ‘approves’.



“What did Jesus have to say about slavery? Well, in the cherished Sermon of the Mount, allegedly given by him and recognized as a prescription for Christian living, the institution of slavery, so prevalent at the time, is never mentioned. However, in Matthew 8 Jesus heals the Roman centurion's slave while (v10) praising the centurion for his exemplary faithfulness. Why didn't Jesus seize this opportunity to condemn slavery and forbid it? But the most astounding pro-slavery statement in the Bible is made by Jesus himself in Matthew 10:24-25. Here he not only reminds slaves that they are never above their master, he actually recommends that they strive to be like him. Throughout the gospels Jesus ignores countless opportunities to condemn slavery. Doesn't this amount to an endorsement of that infamous institution?”

Response: Jesus also had ‘countless opportunities’ to condemn Caesar and the human rights abuses of the Roman Empire, but He was strangely silent, except to direct: ‘Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s…’ I do not think it was because He held Caesar or the Roman lifestyle as a moral paragon.  Paul wrote a letter about a runaway slave called Onesiphorus. His advice was for Philemon to receive him’ not now as a slave, but as a brother beloved’. Such transformed relationships became more common as many of the slave class received the Gospel, the fabric of the Roman empire was changed from the bottom up, as you can read in Gibbon’s history and others. In the New testament church, the teaching was There is no longer Greek nor Jew, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all. This was (and is) the radical message that transformed social structures, not bloody revolutions or secular politicians.  Now the natural man is always quick to blame God for His own faults and evil. The Bible is no more responsible for ‘promoting’ slavery than it is for promoting divorce, nor are societies influenced by Christianity more likely than others to promote slavery.
   Who can read of the consciousness raising messages of Wesley, Wilberforce, and Dr. Livingston, and not deny that it was their moral suasion, not secular society, which was economically profiting from slavery, that propelled the movement of laws and institutions finally condemning slavery ? The places in the world where the pox of slavery persists are not Christian regions, but Muslim strongholds such as Sudan and Mauritania.
   I have lived and labored in Africa, doing medical work and preaching, and while ‘the curse of Ham’ has been used to justify all sorts of sinful oppression which I heartily condemn, there is no denying the reality of a continent stricken by poverty, AIDS, and unparalleled burden of disease.  Is the curse of Ham operational in this?  On the other hand, speaking of dispensations, I know of no other continent which is receiving the Gospel at a more vigorous rate than Africa today.  Perhaps in the coming dispensation, Ham shall teach his brethren of the true values of the kingdom of Christ, of course not apart from the role that Jacob will fulfil in that day Zech. 14:16-20.
   In conclusion, I do not credit secular society for the abolition of slavery, and I think that can be refuted by history alone. I do hold responsible many who have used the scriptures for their own sinful gain, to justify systematic sin in countless ways, yet the scriptures stand ‘towering over the wrecks of time’. Be careful in the puny rantings of people like Voltaire, whose modern ‘enlightenment’ impugns the scripture only because his blinded understanding cannot perceive its truth Mt. 13:15;  your house just may be turned over to the International Bible Society.

Wayne Mathews

Dad,

  I'm sorry if I didnt make it more clear that I disagreed with many of the man's points. I also agree that the Bible is and has been a liberating force. But I also recognize that Christianity has been used to both perpetuate AND abolish slavery. the story of Onesiphorus is a great example of this tension in the bible.
 The history of Christianity in Africa is a complex and troubled one, but historically, missionaries to Africa (at least in colonial times) acted as footholds for European plundering of the continent. I would be glad to give you extensive further reading on the subject which backs my point up.
Anyway, the subject which I was referencing was the issue of interpreting the Bible literally. If slavery is in fact a TOTAL wrong as I believe it is, then it calls for a moral response of TOTAL condemnation. this the bible does not give.
 
If we cannot turn to the bible for a TOTAL condemnation of one of the most wicked and repugnant sins...then how can we turn to it for a fairly minor matter such as the submission of women.
 
We should not as the author did, throw out the baby with the bathwater. But we should also not pretend that our moral code comes directly and only from the bible, independent of cultural contexts.

On another note, I really appreciate this response and exchange. This is the kind of deep, insightful, reasoned, and hopefully sincere debates that make this web site and BB such a valuable resource.

                                       peace and struggle,
                                                    Nate

Boys,

I find it interesting that yet again a woman's role is defined by men.

It was Betty's fault what happened in the assembly?? Are you insane? Women can't lead or teach? Are we talking the assembly or just in general. The old testament has wonderful examples of women. Of course none of these examples relate to Betty because she was doing everything out of the flesh and sin. Her motives were derived out of pride and power. I never saw Betty get up on Sunday morning and teach. She was more subtle than that. Let's have a sister's meeting or meet with the brothers. Everything she did was subtle and behind the curtain per se. Because of her example does not mean now that women become even more submissive.

We are co-heirs! We can preach, teach, prophesy and shepherd. And what better way to teach than to care and be an example.

Men and women think differently, to say not to listen to your wife or a woman is stupidity. And the reverse is true as well.

If I help you navigate thru difficult waters am I leading you? I f I take your hand and help you over the rocks am I leading you? If I turn you away from the destruction where you were headed, am I leading you? You betcha!

I am defiant and I don't want a man telling me what my role as a woman is. ( Unless we are talking God or Christ)  If I wanted that I would run back to the assembly where I could be crushed. I want to hear from the women. How women relate the bible to their lives.

What is up with this slavery issue and women?

To the man who is going to say, "Well, women were decieved first so therefore you must listen to me, crud.." Don't!

I don't understand it and all, and I know that I am a man..but I just think that it is a responsibility issue.  For some reason, in some wierd way, I think that God has planned it from the fall of man, that more responsibility should be laid on the man.  Even though he was not the one that first ate of the tree.  In a way, God punished him more.  Selah!  

But I totally agree with women having something to say.  That would be pure stupidity to think otherwise.  As someone said, you women are coheirs of the kingdom!  

I don't know all the ins and outs of women speaking in the church and what not.  But women are also given gifts and God will lead them as to how to use them.  God Bless.

A Brother in Christ,

Luke Robinson

No, it like a man's role is defined by the Word of God. Michelle had a pretty good post in this thread regarding that.
No one (specifically Brent) said it was entirely or even primarily Betty's fault what happened, but that she did conduct herself unscripturally in de facto teaching and holding an authoritarian place in the Assemblies.  It is evident that she did have a significant role in the deception and abuse.  You are very correct that she was "subtle", but that's how she was able to do the end-around and teach and take authority.
Amen on all counts, but it all must be in accord with Scripture.  
Again, as long as your "defiance" is against the excesses of a man's false authority, Amen!  No you don't need "a man" (or a woman for that matter) to tell you (1 John 2:27 - But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.) I am learning (since leaving the assembly) that we can read and receive the Word and learn from it without having to "spiritualize" it for meaning.  What's your role as a woman? The Holy Spirit by God's Word will tell you, not me.
Good question.  I don't see a connection. Maybe it's a linkage of women's liberation to the abolition of slavery.  I think slavery is a big issue with Nate Matthews.  It is an interesting topic tho'.

Brent makes a great point and I am in general agreement with his position. Have you noticed that the only occasions in which contentious debate arises regarding the role of women (especially in the church), is when the conduct and integrity of the men is called into question? Many intelligent, thoughtful God-fearing women are asking the legitimate question- "Where are the men?!". This point in and of itself provides much food for thought for those of us who believe that scripture teaches that in the chuch we (so-called!) men ought to lead.
As Brent pointed out, the thing that most often brings me the closest to loosing my Christian composure is the sad spectacle of all those so-called leading brothers and elders, reveling like pompous peacocks in their Geftakys-given authority and joyfully lording it over the flock...yet none of them having the "cojones" to stop this rampaging wolf and his harpy of a wife from engaging in the unspeakable slaughter for which they are responsible. Do I want any of my two precious daughters subject to such despicable eunuchs as these??
 NO WAY!!!!
Verne

I say Amen to this post. This is what I have experienced in Ottawa, and the deception keeps feeding itself in those closed brother's meetings.
Marcia

Charles Price is an excellent preacher; I've watched him for the last few Sundays (on TV). He mentioned that Stuart Briscoe is his friend. Price recently finished a series of messages on Romans and just last Sunday preached on Rom 16 where he touched on the women and their roles as mentioned in the chapter. check out livingtruth.ca

Lord bless,
Marcia

Marcia, try going to one of those mega churches and see if they will let you into their board meetings.

That's like comparing oranges with apples. The board meetings at the church I attend are open to anyone and they value the input of the brothers and sisters in fellowship there. This is as it should be.  Marcia and the other women were involved with that small gathering in Ottawa for a long time.  They were affected by what has happened. They have every right to hear what is discussed and have input. It reminds me that Betty's influence is alive and well in these places: making women feel like their only contribution is to get married and have children.

George and Betty aside, did all the assemblies refuse the contribution of the Lord's people?

If it was criticism of the leadership, George and/or the ministry then yes, it was refused.

What's more, not only was it refused, but those who gave criticism were treated with the utmost contempt--even to the point of being excommunicated by the leaders for speaking the truth about the problems in the assembly.  Their names were slandered by the leaders to the rest of the assembly.  The leaders created stories about why they left and/or were excommunicated, saying that they had "fallen into sin", "left the Lord", "become worldly", "committed adultery", "are coveteous", etc. -- none of which were true.  
James, isn't that an indication of great wickedness?

Questions are good, but what is your motivation?  Are you dismayed that the assemblies disbanded?  

Arthur

I  have a hard time accepting that ALL assemblies were evil entities. That ALL LB were evil. That EVERY leader in the assembly abused the flock. That EVERY place George preached was tainted with his evil.

The disbanding of assemblies is a non issue to me. I have moved on. However the individuals in the assemblies that are being painted with this broad brush of evil leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I am not minimizing the hurt that many experienced. However, in our assembly, I did not witness most of what  is being said on this bb. I was there for 12 years.  I love the Lord's people and those in leadership. From my experience they valued the input of the flock. We used to have open planning meetings to solicit input. Now decisions had to be made on what ideas to use. The leadership did that. I accepted that. Women's contributions were valued. They often shared at outreaches. No, they didn't preach the bible study or Sundays. I believe that was scriptural.

Anyway. I was not deceived. I came into fellowship with my eyes open. I saw the testimony of the assembly in our community. I witnessed the love they had for less fortunate, the elderly, those in difficultly. I didn't come into fellowship because of GG. I came because I saw the Lord. I am so thankful for the friendships I have made. How God worked in my life and my family's lives.

I am thankful for where we fellowship now. I have to say I sure miss giving a hymn or praying though. I have to say also, this Sunday the pastor will be away. They asked me to give ministry in his place. This inspite of assembly history. You see, in their eyes, because I heard George preach does not make me a partaker of his sin.

James,

I understand what you say.  My first impressions of the assembly were very positive.  I enjoyed being there the first three years or so.  The people I met, the lives they lived and the deeds they did all seemed extraordinary to me.  I thought that I had finally found true believers that really did obey God and have his love in their hearts.  Yet, I tell you from what I have experienced, there were evil things happening that we did not see so readily.  

I agree that not everyone in the assembly was evil.  There were good, sincere Christians in it.  What about the leaders?  In another thread Jack wrote a good report about three categories in which the leaders fall.  If the leaders in your assembly did not have wicked intentions, then they still failed to recognize George as a wolf and his false teachings.  Also, they were appointed and/or approved by George (though he and they claimed "by God", the truth is that George had the final say, or is that not so?) and therefore the validity of their leadership is in question.
Is the whole assembly system evil?  It was set up by George, for his purposes.  George is a wicked man.  His false teachings are from Satan.  Can a system be evil?  I don't know, but let's just say that being under the spell of a wicked man is detrimental to a person--ref. the book of Galatians.

I can understand how you do not see this.  Even if I or others were to share our personal accounts of encounters with this evil first-hand, that's not what you experienced.

But, may I ask some questions?  I don't know what assembly you are from, so you tell me please:

Did the leading brothers invite George to speak at your assembly?  
If so, did they encourage people to attend?

Did the leading brothers encourage saints to meet with George, Betty or David if or when they visited?

Did the leading brothers endorse George as being a "godly man" or "the Lord's Servant"?

Did the leading brothers encourage saints to go to the seminars?

Were George's books on the book table?  Were other people's books?  What other people's books?  Was a book on there that George did not approve of?  Would the books Churches that Abuse, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse or True Believer be allowed on the book table?  If not, why not?

Did a good portion of every prayer meeting consist of praying for George on his "journey" as well as praying for other assemblies and their leaders?

Did a good portion of every prayer meeting consist of praying for individuals and their needs--including Aunt Tessie's sore toe, our neighbors, the world, the president, etc.  apart from praying that they would come into fellowship or start a new assembly somewhere?

Did the leading brothers preach messages that espoused George's false teachings?

Did the leading brothers ever slander someone who had "left fellowship"?

Did the leading brothers hinder or encourage meeting with Christians from other groups outside the assembly?

Did the leading brothers ever convey the thought that the saints in the assembly were better or more elite than other "mainstream, worldly Christians"?

Did the leading brothers ever pressure you or any other saint into going to meetings, volunteering for outreach, or living in a training home?

Did the leading brothers ever encourage or discourage you or anyone else in the assembly from marrying a particular sister or brother because of what that leader perceived to be the spiritual state of the sister or brother?

Did the leading brothers send money to Fullerton?

What was the money used for?

Was there a public disclosure of funds?

Was there ever an instance where sheep were abused?  If so, what did the leaders do about it?

There are many more, these for now.  My intention is that by answering these, you may see the truth of what the group was about.

Arthur

Arthur, thank-you for your level reponse. I was expecting and may still get a tirade from someone.

Anyway, I am not going to answer every question in writing. I am also not saying the assembly was perfect. George came twice in the 12 years I was there. The last time was 9 years ago. Many in our assembly had never met George. Did we pray for the work? Absolutely. I still pray for the work of the Lord. The exposure of George etal is in my view God at work.

I am just saying Arthur, that not every place and every leader was a clone of George. There is no assembly here any longer but there are some that get together to pray. There are some that get together to read the bible. There are some that get together to visit. On the other hand maybe they are assembling. I thank God for godly friendships.

James,

You're right.  Arthur's response was a good one.  The reason is that in it he challenges you to accurately assess what went on in the assembly.  I think that if you answered his questions in writing you would find them liberating.

Jack

Jack, I am quite liberated. I think that is where I differ from many. I don't have them same bad experience as many on the bb. That said, I have been in a church that:
1. had an immoral pastor.
2. railed on those who dissagreed.
3. taught doctrine that was very questionable.
4. considered those who left as leaving the Lord.
5. the leadership and fellowship endorsed this pastor as a godly man.
... the list goes on.


What I am saying is not EVERYONE in the assembly is like George. Not EVERYONE in the assembly practices his ways.

James,

That is interesting.  I did not know that there were assemblies that George visited so little unless they were outside of the United States.  I thought it was his practice to visit almost every assembly once a year or at least every other year.  

Well, that being the case--twice in 12 years, then obviously your group was not nearly as affected as others by George's personal appearances, teaching and counseling.  I do, however, maintain that the root problem is still there in George's teachings coming into your gathering by his literature, tapes, and the leading brothers messages inspired by George's heavenly vision--correct me if I'm wrong on any of these. I also imagine that many in your group attended "holy convocations" more than twice in 12 years.

Also, there still is the issue of where did the money go that you put in the box--what you and others believed was to be for "the work of the Lord here and abroad".
 


Maybe not a clone, but the leaven is mixed in and the whole lump is leavened.  In other words, you tell me if/how it is possible that the evil of the founder does not affect the groups he founded.


Surely there isn't anything wrong with that (praying, reading etc).  As far as getting together, is the bond shared the former pattern, e.g. the "heavely vision", or truly the fact that they are believers?  Up to them to decide, but I suggest that they need to be clear on what the past assembly was all about before trying to make a new one.  



My point there was that, don't you find it odd that so much attention in the prayer meeting was placed on brother George and his journey as well as on the other assemblies and leaders?  
It was very heavily focused on "the work".  But was that really the work of God?  I submit to you that "the work" was just a code for George's empire, so-to-speak--George's house, George's vision, George's dream, George's racket, George's work.  And the mission of that work, though not explictly stated yet subtly implied at the time and now thoroughly proven, was to provide for George power, recognition, fame, position, authority, money, and sexual pleasure.  

The cover for the racket was "the work".  I believe the nefarious line of thinking was something like the following:


Make the people believe that "the work" is about God's work. We'll have prayer meetings that mimic real Christian prayer meetings, and at these we'll make the people focus on "the work".  Make it all important.  Never let the focus on the work slip.  

We'll pray that "new ones" will come into fellowship.  We'll say this on the pretense that we hope they'll follow the Lord, but we won't tell them that really we want people to be enslaved in this system to do our bidding and give us money.  Nor will we tell them that when we say "lord" we mean George.

We'll use catch phrases.  We'll put emphasis on people and places where it suits us.  We'll never reveal the true nature of "the work".  Everything we do we'll have Bible verses for.  It doesn't matter that the verses don't actually mean what we say they mean, because we'll have gotten this people to believe our interpretation of it.

We'll make people feel like they really need to labor intensely for "the work" because their eternal destiny rides on how well they perform in "the work".  

We'll reward loyalty to the work by granting positions of authority and other benefits.  

If someone raises questions about "the work", they must be
silenced and their name slandered. We must maintain absolute authority.  We'll claim our authority is from God.  We are "God's representatives of God's authority on earth".


Hair-raising isn't it?

Arthur

I'm wondering if you were "expected" or "encouraqed" to go to seminars? ie. The Midwest Seminar or other things of that nature? Were you encouraged to travel elsewhere to hear George preach? When we lived in Norfolk, NE George only came to see us once in five years, BUT we definitely made the trek to Omaha everytime he came to town, which was at least 2-3 times a year and it was expected that we do so.

I always felt Brent had something of a prophetic streak in him... :)
Verne

James,

The articles on the website and posts on the BB show clearly that from California to the Midwest to the East Coast to Canada George's influence was deep and profound.  The testimony of so many people from so many places is just too consistant to leave room for there to have been assemblies outside of George's poisonous influence.

George's visits did have an influence on people and gatherings, but there are many other tools and tactics that he (and the leaders) used to make sure ALL the assemblies served his selfish agenda.  If your assembly had been free of George's influence we would have been told that your leaders had "lost their heavenly vision" and were in need of 'unity'.  This was done when any leaders began challenging George's influence.

Arthur's questions are valid.  Won't you answer them?

Which assembly were you in?

Jack

James, my faithful contender  :)

Are you from Estevan?

I agree with you that not every LB is a GG clone. However we did follow GG and his system and are accountable before God for doing so. In fact, most all of us were deceived, not just the LBs. Most of what is posted on this BB is posted in a 'generally speaking' manner. Every post does not does not require a disclaimer. When the Lord Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, He did not say except for Nicodemus and Joseph and... He just publicly rebuked all of them for their hypocrisy.

I also agree that the friendships in the assembly were close, and even on this BB the new friendships made are special because we have something in common - our assembly experience. BUT when all other avenues of warning the assemblies about deception and Geftakysism have failed, then there is a need for public warning. This BB provides a forum for discussion as well, such that we can know healing from our experiences.

I suggest, that if you were involved in an assembly for as long as 12 years, then you have also been affected by Geftakysism and have not yet faced that fact. I cannot think of any assembly in North America that was autonomous enough not to have been affected. The fact that GG last visited 9 years ago does not exclude you from being isolated from his system. You probably received regular visits from other itinerant brothers who were trained by GG. You probably had workers who met every 2 weeks to review the worker's notes from Fullerton and discuss assembly matters. You probably had LBs who met once a week to ensure that 'the work' was evaluated and prayed for.  And so on and so forth...

Anyway, that's all for now,
Love and God bless,
Marcia

Hi James

Let me be so bold as to state the obvious.  Scoundrels abound.  I have been involved with one named George Geftakys.  It seems that you have been involved with 2 scoundrels so far....if I undertand your quote above properly.

If we don't humbly judge ourselves regarding our willingness to follow the first, we shall surely be ensnared by the second.  

Do not become enangled AGAIN with a yoke of bondage.

If you can't seperate the flesh and the spirit, and can't recognize good and evil, you shall serve yet another scoundrel, or give up completely!

Again, why would anyone want to defend a system that has been so decisivly judged by God?

Brent

What exactly does this mean:  women should not exercise pastoral authority over men ?

I ask because I received this from a local pastor in response to my query about 'women elders' in the church:

1 Tim 2:11-12  No Women Teachers?

The language here is seemingly straightforward and clear. But does Paul really mean what we think he means? And if he does mean it, is this an instruction he intended for universal application, regardless of historical context and circumstances?

This passage and 1 Tim 2:13-15 are at the heart of the ongoing discussion of the place and role of women in church, home and society. Answers to the above questions are critical in that discussion.

This passage is a difficult one for yet another reason, namely, an emotional/experiential one. As a male, I am sure I cannot fully grasp the impact this apostolic word must have on women. But given that limitation, I can nonetheless understand something of the damage to one's self-worth and sense of giftedness this restrictive word must evoke. We are living at a point in history in which women and men are recognized as equally gifted in intellectual ability and communication skills. In such a climate, the apostolic prohibition seems particularly difficult to understand and accept. For what is it about gender which militates against the full expression of the Creator's gifts of heart and mind and spirit?

This question has often been answered with the assertion that clearly defined roles for men and women are divinely ordained and that Paul's restrictive instruction is evidence of such a universal norm. That response, however, is problematic. The account of the creation of male and female in Gen 1-2 - which we take as a foundational theological statement of the Creator's design and intention - affirms male and female as equal and complementary. Both are bearers, together, of God's image (Gen 1:26-27). Both are given the mandate to responsible sovereignty over the created order (Gen 1:28). The creation of the woman is intended to rescue the man from his aloneness and to provide him with a complement (Gen 2:18). 1

Over against an ancient view that the gods played a trick on man by creating woman of inferior material, the creation account of Genesis affirms the woman to be of the same essence as man ("bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh," Gen 2:23). Thus the view that God intended the woman for a restricted role in home, church and society cannot be grounded in the order of creation.

A restricted status for woman has been traditionally grounded in the account of the Fall (Gen 3) in both Jewish and Christian thought and practice. But it is clear from the context of Gen 2-3 that the words of 3:16 - "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" - do not announce God's created design for a male hierarchy. Rather these words announce a cursed existence because of a broken relationship between the human creation and the Creator. A restricted place for woman, and male-over-female dominance, is thus not divine purpose but an expression of human sin.

For Paul, the purpose of Christ's redemptive work was to set God's creation free from the curse of Eden. Those "in Christ" were new creations (2 Cor5:17), freed from the bondage of sin and its expression in human relationships (Rom 6:5-7). In the new humanity created in Christ, the culturally and religiously ingrained view that some human beings, on the basis of gender or race or social status, were in some sense inferior could no longer be maintained (Gal 3:26-28). That was surely one of Paul's central theological convictions (from Hard Sayings of the Bible copyright (C) 1996 by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, published by InterVarsity Press. All rights reserved.)

Marcia

Hi Marcia,

I thought that my statement about women and pastoral authority would get someone's attention.  Let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with what your pastor shared with you above.  (Not that FF Bruce cares about my stamp of approval!)

However, I think we both know an example where a confused woman who imagines herself a spiritual guide and who influences young men in an improper way is a bad thing.  One such person is Betty Geftakys. There are others, as you are aware.  I honestly think that is the sort of thing that Paul was referring to, not the idea that Women should never speak, or teach.  

Every Christian school has women teachers!  What is a mother, if she is not a woman and a teacher?

No, I think this passage is warning us about whacky, confused, presumptous women who get off into strange hyper-spiritual doctrine.  Madam Guyon gives me the creeps!

Brent

Ok Fair enough.

What do you think about women elders in the church?
The Baptist church has women elders.

Marcia

women elders are going to be there, whether they are recognized as such or not.

Bad male elders are a bad thing, bad women elders are a bad thing.  However, good women elders are a good thing.

Jezebel was NOT a good elder,  but I hear that Kay Smith is, even though she is not called one.....

Brent

OK. That helps. My 'old programming' kicks in and i have to re-learn almost everything.

The pastor gave this comment:
A good perspective that may help. This is a partial answer. We affirm the full giftedness of women in body life and beleive that is God's eternal plan.

Lord bless,
Marcia
Interestingly enough, the pastor did not give me the silent treatment. :)

Sounds like a good guy to me.  However, I think you probably deserved the silent treatment.... ;)

Brent

Young men? I thought she had only one disciple...you mean there are more like that specimen?   ;D


C& MA had a wild and vigorous debate about the definition of "elder authority" at General Council 2000. After the smoke had cleared, it was determined that the word "male" would be added to the descriptors of what a elder should be. I know for a fact that there are alliance churches with women elders.

Verne

Hey, don't forget that I tithe and therefore contribute to a portion of this guy's salary. :)

This would be a good challenge for our BB stats expert, golden. If there are x tithers out of the 600 attendees, and there are y salaried staff to a total of $z, then what is the %age of my tithe that goes towards Pastor A's salary.


I heard this joke recently told by one of the Pastors.

2 friends are in a small airplane and their airplane crashes onto a remote small island. One of the guys (A) sits down and calmly hangs around. The other (B) is frantic and paces around. B checks out the island and discovers that there is nothing to eat and no other inhabitants. A says "Well, I make $250,000 a week". B retorts "What good is $250,000 if you cannot spend it and cannot buy food with it on this island? How can you be so calm, don't you see we're going to die?" A replies "I make $250,000 a week." B says "Well that totally useless now!" A replies "I make $250,000 a week and I tithe, so my pastor will find me."

Lord bless,
Marcia

PS. On a side note, an open and honest query should merit an open and honest response. I do not know if Pastor A had to have a long consultation with Pastors B & C to even decide if he should reply to me in the first place. And then maybe arrange a meeting to discuss my question in order to come up with some 'party line' answer to me. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but he replied directly to me in a simple staightforward way. I did not feel that he is 'higher' because he is a leading..  oops sorry Pastor, and I am a mere attendee and a sister at that who could so easily be deceived as Eve was in the garden.

Also, Once bitten twice shy. I did not blindly follow Brent and Verne and MarkC. I checked out the BB and debated for 6 months before I CHANGED my mind re. assembly matters. Hence I queried the Pastor as I needed to understand his perspective. My Geftakys assembly background has given me a particular view/bent on the Scriptures, and I need to re-evaluate everything I have learned thus far.

Lord bless to all,
Marcia

The fact that each of us even makes the comparison between a real pastor of a real church and the Assembly is a sad commentary regarding what we were involved in.  

In the Assembly, Marcia's question would have been viewed as a challenge, and the fact that she asked it would have been discussed behind closed doors.  A more difficult question would have been sidestepped until the "brothers," had time to consult Mike or George----being careful not be influenced by the latter---and then an "offficial" response along with admonition would be given to her.

An example of what I am referring to is, "What happens to the money that we put in the box?"  "Well sister, it's used for the work, why do you care?  Is it your money or God's?"  The answer to this question is never given, and the financial practice, to this day, is a shrouded mystery.

In the case of the church that Marcia now attends, answers to difficult questions are given without consultation with headquarters, and the financial statement is available on paper, or in xcel format, at a moments notice.  When I was first out of the Assembly, these sorts of things shocked me in a good way.  Now that I am used to open, honest, honorable dealings, the way the Assembly operated disgusts me.

What the He#% was I thinking giving tens of thousands of dollars to these people?  Afterall, it really was God's money!  Why did I give it to George? :-[ :'(

Interestingly, getting back on topic RE women in the church.  The Assembly took a hard line in word here.  "No women leaders.  Women can't read the words to a hymn they want sung, a brother must read them after she asks if it's OK to sing the hymn.  Women can't pray last or first in worship, can't lead chapter summary, etc.

Then, there was Betty.  Betty's authority went so far beyond even a liberal denomination's idea of women in the ministry it was amazing!

The above is exactly what Jesus meant when he said, "observe what they say, but do not do as they do, for the say and do not."  Except in this case, I don't totally agree with what they said about women.

Nevertheless, if a church wants to take the stand that women should not lead, teach, etc.  I have no problem with that at all.  God bless them for having convictions about the Word and sticking to them!   However, there is a big difference to being consistent regarding one's convictions with one's deeds, and doing what Betty Geftakys did.

Brent

I was involved with the Assembly for probably just long enough to turn my whole thought pattern upside down. I was asked recently to be a Children's Church teacher/helper by my pastor. I was terrified. My thoughts were so that I couldn't really honestly say no to my new leadership. They know what they are doing. Besdies, some women taught during vbs. I still hold to a lot of thoughts I think. But the whole point of the Holy Spirit is to be a patient teacher. Well at least I think so if you ask me. I would love nothing more than to not freak out when Pastor says let's turn to Acts for fear of the whole anchors thing. I would love to have not cared about anyone who I worshipped with when I was in the Assembly. Truth is the hardest thing about staying away was we were made so close by how strange everything sounded to those on the outside. Yet the biggest victory for me is to relax. I know God's going to work all things out for good for us. Sometimes it's a challenge to go to church. But I just remember I am not going to church for others. Or even to show that I still can. It's what God wants.

Yes, it will take some time for that old programming to to be ineffective.  But then maybe 'remnants' of it may remain until...  The healing process is an ongoing process.

I still do not like singing 'hymns and spiritual songs' without musical accompaniment.
I have to make a deliberate choice not to 'go with the flow' when I feel compelled to do so.  The compelling does not come from others, but is self-invoked.
I love going to church, probably because it is refreshing and very different from my assembly experience.  The first few months were very difficult, but now I feel that I am getting to know and appreciate my new church environment.
Most people have never heard of the Geftakys assemblies and we thought we were the keepers of 'the vision' and were top-notch.

Lord bless,
Marcia

MAY 19:11:50 PM:

HOT TOPIC:
In the Baptist Church I am a member in now.
The Fellowship is in hot debate over the roles of women in leadership roles.
We have deaconess, but in the roles of preparing the communion table,  (woman duties).
Our church is too small to have elders.

Woman deaconess are not part of the board.

We only just introduced women ushers.
We do have a woman Sunday School Superintendent.
Some church are okay with it and some arent.
Depends on the kind of Baptist Church.

THE QUESTION: I wouldnt mind a discussion on is??
IF WOMEN WERE AS EDUCTION DURING THE BIBLICIAL TIMES OF JESUS, & PAUL;  AS THEY ARE NOW.
WOULD SOME OF THE RESTRICTIONS PUT ON WOMEN IN THE BIBLE. BE THE SAME.
such as a woman to stay quiet, under the teaching of a male leadership.
What if the woman who is staying quiet knows more than the male that is teaching her.???
JUST A THOUGHT!!!!.

I don't think God cares about what the society at the time the Bible was being inspired has a ton of what's in it. I think God was clearly capable of keeping His thoughts clear though society was shouting out another answer. Still I think that I'm not in favor of women being in position over men; even deaconesses. My church doesn't. Perhaps it's just more of the past teachings coming to haunt me. But I do think that the Bible is a historical document, sure.  However I don't think God changes His mind just because our culture wants him to.  As to what if the girl knows more than the guy - well, I don't really know what to say. But I never got the impression out of the church enviorment women weren't allowed to express their thoughts. Just not in church; and not to present it in a way that she's not willing to take the guys leadership. Yet, I am not sure you want to listen to me - I'm still learning.  As an example, Marcia, I am more comfortable with the whole no instrument thing. So take what I say with a grain of salt. None of us is perfect and knows it all. Sorry if I offended anyone! :)

Dont worry about expressing your opinions, and feeling honestly.
They are yours, and you  "have a right" to them
and to express them "isnt this what this B & B posting is for, to be able to express opinions and feelings without feeling guilty for doing so"

I glad you expressed your opinion on women in the roles with in the church.  I just wanted to get a subject going.????!!!
I thank you for your expression of the bible is not just a historical book.
I agree and I say amen to that. The bible is the living word of a living God. It is timely and speaks volumes to people, to where they are at with their walk with Christ.
So I am glad you are expressing.

I grew up in a Brethren church. This morning my mother reminded me of that, In the church she has choosen to
worship in with  my aunt. The bible studies these older women were attending. was being bombed with ideas and discussion that Jesus wasnt the Son of God and the Bible is only a story book, not the word of God.
Well , get the feathers up, on people who were raised in the brethren belief.  
My assembly experience was short and, lets just say short with a few special memories that is sweet.
But my main exposure to church was sunday school  and youth group , with in the Brethren setting.  My maternal Grandmother was Brethren.
I thank you for your expressing your feelings on music.
I like music with my singing.
I like clapping hands, but the fellowship baptist church I have choosen to worship Jesus in. Is very conservative.
There is nothing wrong with clapping your hands, after all God made those instruments, and our voices before
any other.
Dont forget, Psalms all those instruments used in Praising and worshipping God.
I am doing and practicing Sign Language during Sunday Morning Worship  singing time, ANd my voice
is a JOYFUL NOISE TYPE, so it is better that  the
piano, organ, guitar, sometimes a recorder/flute
and my hands in signing.  
And the voices of the congregation.
In my opinion, I have faith, God accepts this type of
worship, as a fragnance offering from his children in worshipping in thanksgiving and praise, raising our voices above the instruments in timely hymns, chorus and songs of praise.

Just wanted to say thank you for the expressing of your opinion and feelings. God speaks to each of us, and his timing will be his own and his teaching us will be what he has planned for each of us.
God will be with you, as you sort things out in your own heart, what is or is not acceptable for you.
The head covering was an issue with me at first.
I have made peace with God over this issue.
Certain issues, that does not depend upon our salvation, and our journey with him, can be debated,
and peace come between me and God to overcome.
just like the head covering, or music with or without instrument, women asssuming leadership roles , like deaconness, deacon, or elders etc.
If it doesnt affect the Bible truth, Jesus is the SOn of God, who came to earth as a human baby, to grow up into a man, with the purpose of offering up himself as
a living sacrifice for our sins., And if we call upon the name of the Lord we will be saved, and with our mouths and hearts, we confess we are sinners in need of forgiveness and confess with our mouths and believe in our Hearts that Jesus is Lord and Saviour, and has given us the gift of Salvation  as a free gift, and we have received it , we will have eternal life. In otherwords John 3:16.

And I hope you agree there is no harm in discussing certain topics , like women teachers, or exploring the cultural times of the bible.
It gives insight, helps us to research the bible as a living document. With real people who Jesus spoke to.
Real people followed him around, were so hungry for the words that he spoke, that they could wait until he recross the sea, and were waiting and welcoming him, The saught him out in every turn.
SO History comes to life within the Bible.
It is fun.  But I like biblical history. It bring the Bible
to life for me.  
That is me.
SO thank you for sharing < I thank you for allowing me to share with you.
Talk to you later.

Just some thoughts out loud in response to Helms and Lenore.

I am still re-evaluating this women's role in the church thing and have not come to any definite conclusions.  Any church I attend, I will likely disagree with them on one point or another. e.g. infant baptism, or headcoverings, or musical instruments, or women elders, or...  But is it an issue worth dividing over?  E.g. if God is evidently working in their midst, then maybe I am the one who needs to re-think my theology.  The assembly lacked the message of God's grace, though it was correct on various doctrines so... it's onward forward.

Just curious Helms re.no instruments.  Is it because you believe it is a biblical principle, or it is just your preference?

Back on topic now.  In the NT there were prophetesses.  Rhoda was a door-keeper.  They met at Lydia's home and at Mary's home.  Priscilla and Aquila were involved in the 'work' of discipling and ministering.  etc.  And there is that verse that says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.(Gal 3:28 )".

Lord bless,
Marcia

I suppose my no insturnment thing really has to do with the fact I don't want to be distracted by the music than the lyrics. I know some people don't care and are fine with the whole thing. And that's alright; I'm not saying music is evil! It's just the same reason I sit in the second pew at church. I want to be sure I'm not distracted with who's there and not there. Or if so and so is sitting really close to so and so.  What a nice dress so and so has on! Boy, that brother is cute. You know? I want to be there focused on what Pastor is saying. And in the same way I guess I want to focus on the words I'm singing than the piano or what have you.
I suppose this is what made me so open to the Assembly lifestyle. There wasn't a whole lot of disorder and freedom. Which I mean and which I don't - if that makes any sense to anyone. I liked having a reason - a right way of doing things. It's really hard to live in a gray world when no one tells me what's right and wrong. I mean yeah there are some universal truths. But on the whole there is freedom in Christ. Which is what frightens me. I am always terrified which ever decision I make is the one that God frowns upon.
Don't get me wrong; my head knows that God isn't going to throw me into hell. I know Im saved and I was forgiven; if I come to him with more sin he just keeps cleansing away. I just want to get past this baby stage and be mature; you know? I guess my heart doesn't know yet how forvgiving and patient God is. Or maybe I'm just not patient enough with myself; I don't know.
I'm just curious if anyone else had this need for order when they entered the ASsembly. It's just time and again I feel somewhat foolish for joining and giving so much.
I worry sometimes if all that is going to go up in smoke when God judges our works. (I know that doesn't have anything to do with my salvation.) Because sometimes it was because I didn't want to get another consequence or I know somehow someone in the Assembly would find out that I didn't do my reading. (accountability, you know?)

Funny you should talk about signing; I do, too! :) And of course I do find myself at odds with myself on things. It's like there are three of me sometimes. There's the me who I was before, during, and after the Assembly. I wonder if anyone else goes through that too! I do also enjoy the fact that the psalms also talk about dancing - and David danced before the Lord. There are some things that don't give me a second thought. I'm slowly learning that salvation is above all the rest is just details. Not that details aren't imortant (I hope the former head of my house should hear me say that! lol) But they are last; the final touches that color. It's the difference between a dirt/gravel road and cement. They both get you the same place. Just one your car gets less dirty going on.
And as far as God accepting our worship. I think that perhaps there are many ways to worship. I am still working out the details on that thought. Like I know honest, saled churches can disagree about choice in music for example. Or raising/clapping of hands. I think the biggest part is it's God we are worshipping. God never seemed to show displeasure at sincere people trying to please him (not self.) If I'm wrong please tell me so. Faith is the victory. Not being able to follow commands. If anyone can follow that point.

Helms, I was just wondering how long were you in the Assembly? And how long have you been out??? I think the time frame would be helpful in trying to answer some of your questions and to share experiences on the subject. Thank-You.....Summer.........BTW....his Mercies are new every morning Great is His Faithfulness...Lam3.

Well I'll just guess you've recently left the Assm. Could be wrong. Ps.100 says "Make a Joyful noise unto the Lord ,serve the Lord with Gladness....And in John 4.God is seeking the True Worshippers to Worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.  I've been to all types of Worship (except people rolling in the isles) and I think its a matter of preference..I f you like raising your hands and singing or if your real conservative you may just sit quietly singing...Some get up and Dance around. In my church the Pastor's wife is a Co- Paster, yet she doe'snt get up and give the word she does Womans Ministry. My Sister's church has womans pastors and they too lead womans ministry which I think is appropriate. And once a month is a luncheon with a woman speaker. They are not leading the Men. I think the Assm mentality of legalism has put so many Head-Trips on people. After about 5, 10 to 20 years you'll lighten -up as far as trying to dissect every movement you make. That self-introspection where  your trying to stay a few steps ahead of whoever is going to question you next..(Great Liberty) Just a thought on your post...BTW...I sometimes feel like I've had 9 lives and 8 have nothing to do with the Assm. You can move on from the negativity that was embraced. I had to go when it started getting weird in the house I was in (a coupleshouse) prior to that I had good fellowship with the Sisters..Then things got strange really inreasonable and I knew I had to GO i was very alarmed and yet knew I could'nt confide in the Top Leadership or their would be major back-lash..how did I know this?  i just knew how the system operated intuitively you were never to break the code of silence unles your bags were packed to go!! Absolutly unbelieveable to me now that I subjected myself to this in my late teens,early twentys.

Funny thing is that I find that the musical accompaniment covers a multitude of sins and actually helps to keep the pace and the tone etc.  The music is not very prominent, and the band is not even on the 'stage' center, but off to the left on their own platform.  It turned out to be not a distraction but an enhancement.  There are churches where the band is 'performing' while everyone sings along, and that could be somewhat of a distraction.


Yeah, freedom in Christ can be scary, and yet it is the very things that helps us to 'grow up' in Christ and to mature.

I know some parents that frown upon almost every decision their young adult kids make.  It makes for a stressful relationship and breeds rebellion and resentment and does not promote maturity.  In my past assembly experience, the leaders frowned upon almost every decision we made that would not have been the same as what they would have done.  This did not help us to grow up in Christ, but rather to be dependant on the leaders to 'lead' us. (disclaimer:  I know, I know.  They sincerely thought that they were doing the Lord's will.  But it still had that -ve effect).

Unfortunately, our assembly experience has given us a distorted picture of God, our loving heavenly Father.  Remember the father of the prodigal son story...

Love the Lord your God with all... And love your neighbour as yourself...
"On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."  Matt 22:40
This should help resolve the 'accountability' dilemna.

Selah.

Lord bless,
Marcia

P.S. Re. women's role
Deborah was a leader in Judges.
In your particular locality, who was in charge/led?  Was it the head LB?  Was it the Lord Jesus?  Was it sister X ?  Was it... ?

MM

Actually it's been almost three years. It's just I've never been able to talk about this stuff before. My family knows I was in a bad church but not how bad. If they knew some of what happened to "teach" me why well let's just say that it wouldn't be pretty for anyone.  And boy is that an understatement. Anyhow. I was in there for - hmm I'd say four years. And I get what you are saying about instinctibely knowing not to say anything to the leadership. I got consequences for going to  a funeral instead of doing my cleaning. Of course to me that place didn't have a speck of dirt in my eyes. But anyway. I knew very well if I would have told the leadership about it I would get in trouble for sowing discord or being unsubmissive. And yes I joined through a college Bible study so I joined late teens early adulthood.
And Marcia I am in agreement with you aout the whole eaning on them to a point that our decision making process is so stunted it's almost atrophied. And I do appreciate your encouragement about accountability. You are of course right.

The university campus, like other places the saints 'trod' was a predatory place.  I spent enough years on the campus to know.  Irony for us, as my uncle ridiculed me once: "You're one of the brightest minds in the country (which I never claimed) and you don't know this..." and my this he meant some stupid bit of family lore.  The point is that we thought we were really learning something, had learned something, were better off than the world that marched on.  Fact was, we were really handing our own power over to a machine - how un-university of us, eh?  Yes, it's no wonder that the George machine chose to do it's fishing on the university campus.  Sharks looking for the little schools of fish.
d

Delila,

GG was looking for young, uncommitted, idealistic and bright young people to provide the troops for his movement.  He knew that  young people are inclined to be critical of the mistakes of the past, and that fit right into his, "they all did it wrong, let's do it right" ideas.

He also knew that young people, by definition, have had very little life experience and tend to jump on bandwagons, whether they are political, religious, environmental or social.  The young have provided the troops for just every big social change that has happened, at least in free societies.  Some good, some not so good.

Other cults know this as well, and most of them recruit on the college campuses.  In fact, young college age Jews are the most likely of any demographic group to become involved in a cult.  They are reacting against the deadness of their spiritual culture.

Anyway, we fit the bill excactly for what GG wanted.  Notice, that among the few groups still going, they still reach out onto the college campus.


God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

First, are you the Thomas Maddux from the History Department at CSUN? Assuming your answer is yes, were you also recruited on that (or another) campus? Many of the folks GG recruited were young idealistic college students, but how was he able to get through to (more critically thinking) professors as well? Do you have any recollections of what you thought of GG's scholarship. Did you ever think, "Man, this guy is jumping to conclusions"? What was going through your mind at that time? Also, were there other professors in the assembly that you knew of?

Thanks,

Bob Beasley.

Bob,

Well......yes and no.

First, yes I am the Thomas Maddux from the History Dept. at CSUN.

Second, No, I am not the Thomas Maddux from the History Dept. at CSUN.

Does that clear it up?   ;D

I graduated in January of 68 with a BA in History from CSUN.  In September of 69 I returned to finish my teaching credential.  One day I was in the History Dept. office to get a document.  When I told them my name, the clerk said, "We've been waiting for you."

Seems that they had just hired a new professor with the same name.  I have often wondered about what would have happened if I had played along for a few days.  At least I could have had a key to the faculty elevator long enough to copy it.   ;D

The other Thomas Maddux still teaches there.  When I was still living in the Valley I occassionally got phone calls about why so and so couldn't hand in his term paper on time or such.

GG at least gave the appearance of having great learning.  I know that many have questioned the legitimacy of his claims to have done work on a Ph.d.  at USC, but I think he did.  One of his former secretaries told me that she had seen a box of graded papers with professor's comments on them from classes at USC.

I had some long talks with GG about Bible prophecy, philosophy, predestination and free will, inspiration and similar topics.  Once he showed me a whole book of symbolic diagrams he had drawn that illustrated books of the Bible chapter by chapter.  Another time he showed me a Bibliography of Plymouth Brethren writers that he had helped to research.  

On another occassion, he showed me a whole notebook of Boolian symbolic logic equations he had done.  Boolian logic is a graduate level method of logical reasoning done by assigning numerical value to various propositions and arguments in order to be able to reach your conclusion without personal bias interfering.   Philosophers jokingly refer to it as "divine algebra."

So, I don't know if you would call what he did, "scholarship", but he had read widely and thought deeply.   I have no question of that.

I grew up in the Campbellite movement, which you may know as the "Church of Christ."  It is another "back to the New Testament pattern" movement like the PB's.  So, when I met GG through the Whittier group, (another PB spin-off), I was easy picken's.  

I alread believed much of what he taught about the church, and his charisma was real.  Charisma has been defined as, "the ability to get other people to work your agenda."   That, sadly, is what I did for many years.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

the Proverbs 31 Woman seemed to work alot outside the home v.16 she considers a field and takes it from her earnings she plants a Vineyard...And shes out selling belts to the tradesman...She also rises while it is night and in the Morning shes up before all, as her children are praising her, her Husband is also praising her...Although she is probibly the absolute Ideal and may never of really existed that we know of (unless you know) or she was the typical Jewish Woman of the day. I could'nt really remember were the Assembly Woman allowed to work that is the Married ones of course.. it seeems Betty held doen a teaching job and I think on rare occassion wives were allowed to work if the Husband was Sick. What was the Standard????

Any comments on these verses:

1Cor 14:35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

1Tim 2:11 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
1Tim 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Marcia

Marcia,

I honestly don't know.  During our former pastor's tenure, we would occasionally have a female missionary teach the Sunday service during a missions conference.  Our current pastor probably would not allow this.  How much are these Scriptures dealing with cultural behavior and how much is timeless Biblical principle?  I really don't know enough to answer.

It would be interesting to go to a well stocked Christian bookstore or seminary library and compare commentaries.  I have a feeling one would find arguments on both sides of the pond.

-Dave

Marcia,

Verses like these become problematic when we adopt a certain attitude towards the Bible.  It is viewed by many Christians as sort of a free standing book of revelations that descended from heaven intact.  We can't really understand it, it is believed, unless we are given special ability by the Holy Spirit as we read.

Read this way, many see the Bible as a book of rules for all Christians at all times.  That is where the Plymouth Brethren, and GG, got their "New Testament pattern of worship" ideas.  Head coverings, sisters speaking aloud or praying, or not doing so, all flow out of these assumptions.

I have learned to look at the scriptures for what they are.  They are documents written in a particular place, time, and situation by a particular individual for a particular purpose, and to a particular audience.  

We can learn much from them, but we must remember that all scripture is FOR us, but all scripture is not TO us.


I believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the original documents.  But that does not mean that we understand everything that they contain.  Even an apostle said that they contain "things hard to be understood."

The most important question in Biblical interpretation is, "What did the original readers understand when they read this?"  We simply do not know what the situation in Corinth was.  We also don't know what the particular situation that Paul addressed in his letter to Timothy was.

For example I Cor. 14:35 says it is improper for a woman to speak in church.  But in Chapter 11 verse 5 it says a woman should cover her head while praying or prophesying!  Seems to me it would be a little difficult to pray or prophesy without speaking.  Then in 14:4 it tells us prophecy is for edifying the church.  In 14:29-31 it says that "all may prophecy."

To us, this may seem convoluted and contradictory...but I doubt if it did to them.   We just don't know what was going on in that church.  Paul wrote several letters to the Corinthians, four I believe, and visited them three times to deal with problems.

I remember discussing head coverings with a professor of historical theology who had fellowshipped among the Plymouth Brethren for many years.  (And who knew who GG was)  He told me, "I don't know what those verses mean."

Probably the most honest comments I ever heard on the subject.

Most churches take I Tim 2:11-12 to mean that  God desires male headship in church and home, and that when this is being exercised women shouldn't dispute it.  They don't take it to mean that a sister cannot ever speak or teach.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

     If not for Dave & Tom, I would not have posted here.  I still feel the pressure from my father's influence & my assembly days to only speak with authority (dazzle them with brilliance or baffle 'em with B.S.), and the truth is that, having been told several versions of interpreting the above & related (?) verses, I have no clear perception of how (or even that) they apply to us today... or whether they may apply in one case/place and not another.

     Therefore, I am grateful for Dave's open honesty, and Tom's clarity of thought & expression, which have encouraged me to confess my ignorance.  For a long time I believed that ignorance was failure to serve God; that one must know with certainty the answer to every question.  Unfortunately, there are many at large today who perpetuate this fallacy by professing to know-all and relating condescendingly to those who do not.  I have been very susceptible to their guiles in the past, and request your prayer that I may grow beyond that difficulty.

     I have nothing to add to Dave's & Tom's answers to Marcia's question, and hope I am not diverting to a tanget, but I see clearly from these posts that the question is not HOW, but WHETHER these verses apply directly to our situations.  Surely all scripture may benefit us, but in so many different ways:  While it may directly instruct us, it may also demonstrate by example, rebuke and correct us by numerous means, illustrate as well as command, educate us as to our resources in Christ.  

     We MUST realize that no living soul wholly KNOWS the scriptures:  God's Word is given us to be learned throughout our lifetimes, always arriving at new enlightenment; never having arrived.  Therefore no one has the final word on a matter for another of us.  I am learning to recognize that the wisest and most learned among us talk UP to us, NOT downward.  They labor to encourage us in our own embracing of Christ, rather than trying to impress upon us the depth of theirs.

     One's personal mention or inference of one's spirituality may often indicate that it would not be evident upon its own merits.

     Marcia, I have not directly addressed the passages you asked about, but I hope to have added my "Amen" to Dave's & Tom's posts...

al

Marcia,

My take on if a woman's got anything to say, let her go through her husband and keep her mouth shut in the church:
that's the patriarchy, evidence that the bible is a great tool for those who seek to oppress women. Women didn't get the vote in Canada until relatively recently, did you know? We weren't considered people under the law.  And, if you hold the bible's measure as the boundaries within which a woman should operate, well, get out the stones and say your good-byes quick girl because men weren't stoned for idolatry were they?  Not unless they messed with another man's property (ie his wife) and was caught and didn't have any friends in those parts.  The bible and the plow were two great tools of the patriarchy, leveling civilizations whither they went for hell knows how long now.  George's tripe about there always being faithful little enclaves (like the assembly) who stood through the ages against the established worldy organized church is unlikely.  Each religious structure had its power stucture and its religion legitimized its claim to power.  Hence bastard is still a reprehensible term in our language, as awful as it was to George b/c it subverted his power to choose who would be together and for what reason (to maintain the power of his dynasty).  Well, dear Marcia, that's my 2cents.
delila

Thank you all.

I do agree with you Delila re. George Geftakys.  GG's twist on the Scriptures, as preached by himself and the brethren, does give me a certain perspective on the Scriptures.  I see a different perspective in action where I now fellowship, hence I had to ask for my own edification.

I like what Tom said: "... Most churches take I Tim 2:11-12 to mean that  God desires male headship in church and home, and that when this is being exercised women shouldn't dispute it.  They don't take it to mean that a sister cannot ever speak or teach."

And there's the quote by Dorothy Sayers:
[/size]

The Lord Jesus definitely had a different attitude towards the females He encountered.  Through the ages, men have abused their positions of leadership in the name of religion or whatever.  Then the feminist movement broke us out of the box, but swung to the other extreme.  Rules and regulations only box us in, while keeping God out.  Where Jesus "is" there is healing and harmony and grace and truth.  I cannot discard Jesus (and the Bible) just because men/women twist the Scriptures for their own purposes.

Much love to you Delila,
Marcia

Do tell Marcia, what is the other extreme?
d

Delilah,

You say that "the Bible is a great tool for those who seek to oppress women."  Just why would the Bible be necessary?  Women were being "oppressed" long before the Bible was written.  When a man wanted a wife, he just bought one, paying her family.  In most societies he could kick her out, beat her, even kill her.

Christianity's teaching on the treatment of women is way above this.

Men are commanded to love their wives and treat them well.  Divorce is prohibited.  Financial responsibility is commanded.  I think that millions of women in past ages and in the present as well would consider themselves fortunate to live under such protections.

The Bible teaches us moral values.  You are talking about women being "oppressed", ie, treated badly.  You say that "religion" has legitimized this.

So, what would the situation be if we simply got rid of "religion?"

All moral values come from religion.  There is no natural basis for morality.  No lawgiver, no laws.

So, in a religionless world what would be wrong with mistreating women, or anyone for that matter?  You seem to feel that it is wrong to "oppress" women.  You are appealing to a value that is based in religion, to condemn religion, the source of the value!

In such a society no one would ask, "What should I do, or not do?"

The question would be, "What can I get away with?"  Since men are, on average, 1/4 to 1/3 larger and stronger then women, the answer would be, "pretty much anything."

This is an improvement?

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Women can be just as 'abusive' as men re. twisting the Scriptures to support their perspective.  In our assembly involvement both of us have experienced some of that 'abusive' treatment from men and women.  In my case, I have even promoted GG's agenda by dishing out GG's twisted perspective to others.

The Lord Jesus Christ, on the other hand, refused to succumb to the 'traditions of the leaders', but only did the will of the Father.  His ministry was/is to the needy and the wounded.  Recently, I watched 'Patch Adams' starring Robin Williams.  Patch did not always help the patients according to the 'traditional' means of treatment.  He cared for the patients as persons and brought real help and healing to them.  In many(not all) ways, it was a good illustration of Christ's ministry of caring and compassion.

Lod bless,
Marcia

Delila,
While it's true that men operating under that the Judeo-Christian tradition have not always treated women well, I think you must take a look at the world as a whole and how women are treated or viewed within most cultures before throwing in the towel.  
Throughout the world, cultures untouched by Christendom treat women as property. They are oft mistreated, even mutilated before being sold to a husband they've never met where the abuse becomes even worse.  The bride's in-laws often heap abuse on her if she does not please them.
I'm not talking about ancient cultures, I'm talking about right now, present day, throughout Africa, Asia, the Middle East, etc... :'(
God set out protections for women in the Old Testement that were unheard of before that time.  He also gave men huge responsibilities in the New Testament for the care and protection of their wives, widows in the church and the flock they oversaw.
While some obviously abuse or ignore these teachings, that is not the standard or the norm.  Most of us can say that we've been in and/or have finally found healthy churches where women are respected and their contibutions are welcomed.
I hope you will eventually find such a place as I believe you have a great deal to contribute.
With utmost respect for all you've been through and prayers for healing,
Janet

I am acquainted with a woman, an American citizen who was born in Mexico, who married a Jordanian Muslim.

His "religion" was not much of a problem since he only practices it nominally, and lets her attend church and raise the kids as Christians. (She got saved years after they married.)

She told me that about a year after they married they moved to Jordan for a few years.  When they arrived at her husband's family's house she went upstairs to take a shower.

As she showered the curtain was suddenly pulled open, and her mother in law, her aunts, (by marriage), and her sisters in law were all standing there.  They physically pulled her out of the shower and proceeded to examine her for signs of disease and for her potential as a son producer, (read brood mare).

Apparently she passed, as they have been married for over 20 years and have three kids, all girls, ha ha.   ;D

Now, I am not aware that Islam specifically teaches this practice.  But it definitely supports a culture where women are second class citizens.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Women are not forbidden from teaching per se. Were that the case, the men would be leading women's Bible studies and Titus Two meetings. Women can - and should - teach Sunday school, but not lead from the pulpit
Women don't have to be completely silent or completely under the thumb of a domineering pastor. There are times when women speaking up, so to say, are entirely appropriate and necessary; it depends on the issue. Seems to me that this passage bears similarities to the roles in a healthy, godly marriage. As we pray daily for our husbands, we should be praying for our church leaders as well. God has specific roles for us as women (check out Titus Two) and we must obey them, but we don't have to take some of these verses to the extreme (such as how to dress).

I'd get a good commentary on I Timothy or other books to get more out of these verses, to supplement the comments made here. I'd also check out books by Elizabeth George - specifically, "Beautiful in God's Eyes" and "A Woman After God's Own Heart". I'm a bit biased since Liz is a personal friend and former Sunday school teacher of mine, but I cannot say enough of how much my walk with the Lord as a woman has been impacted by her writing.

Hope this helps,

Jerre

This topic may have been already discussed so forgive me for re-hashing.
Someone said that if an unbelieving husband does not want the wife to go to church, then the wife should not because the Bible instructs the wife to submit.
Any comments??

Marcia

That is a tough one. With mixed marriages one has to be extremely careful as I have seen God do differnt things with different poeple. If I were consulted, I would tell the sister if it threatened the marraige's immediate survival, she should not go. Especailly if she got into this situation as a believer.
Verne