Womens' Role in the Church

[M2]

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.

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.

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?)

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

[Helms]

Well I'll just guess you've recently left the Assm. Absolutly unbelieveable to me now that I subjected myself to this in my late teens,early twentys.

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.

[delila]

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

[Oscar]

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

[Robert E. Beasley]

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.

[Oscar]

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?  

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.  

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

[summer007]

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?

[M2]

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

[outdeep]

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

[Oscar]

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,

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

[al Hartman]

Quote from: Marcia on June 16, 2004, 08:52:24 am:
 
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
 

     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

[delila]

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

[M2]

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:

" Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man--there had never been such another.  A prophet and a teacher who never nagged at them, who never flattered or coaxed or patronized; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as 'The women, God help us!' or 'The ladies, God bless them!'; who took their questions and arguments seriously, who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no ax to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unselfconscious.

"There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words of Jesus that there was anything 'funny' about woman's nature.

"But we might easily deduce it from His contemporaries, and from His prophets before Him, and from His Church to this day."

[/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

[delila]

Do tell Marcia, what is the other extreme?
d

[Oscar]

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

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