Rebellious Women

[greenguzzi]

If you are saying that changing churches is like changing spouses, then you are a freaking moron.

 

[Dave-W]

Utter nonsense. You are saying that my God-given reason has no value.
Back in the early 2000's I was attending a fantastic Anglican church led by wonderful pastor who I respect to this day. He moved on to greener pastures, and his replacement was a total douchebag.
I assure you it wasn't at all traumatic to move on, in fact it was ... wonderful!
I made all the proper relationships, but a selfish prick of a pastor ruined it for us all.

But thankfully I have found a new Church.

Sounds like it was traumatic to me.

Biblically, congregational leaders (pastors, elders, deacons) are to be raised up from within the congregation, and in most situations stay there for life.

 

[Dave-W]

If you are saying that changing churches is like changing spouses, then you are a freaking moron.

<sigh> You do not understand being a functioning part of the body if you are of that opinion.

Read 1 Cor 12. (not the spiritual gifts part) We are a body. Every congregation is a body. For me to get up and leave a congregation is no different than my upper right arm deciding to move somewhere without me.

14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. 19 If they were all one member, where would the body be? 20 But now there are many members, but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; 23 and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, 24 whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, 25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

 

[greenguzzi]

We are a body. Every congregation is a body. For me to get up and leave a congregation is no different than my upper right arm deciding to move somewhere without me.

Nope, the Body isn't a congregation. The Body is the Church Invisible. Christ has only one Body.
We put up signs like "Baptist" or "Anglican" or "Messianic" or "Episcopalian", but they are simply man-made constructs.
I was once very committed to a wonderful congregation, that saved me from hell. But they moved into heresy, so I moved. (Or more correctly, they moved.)
To be as connected to a congregation as to one's arm is surely idolatry.

 

[Dave-W]

To be as connected to a congregation as to one's arm is surely idolatry.

Not so. It should be the norm for all local congregations.

I would submit that you are not "..rightly discerning the body..." 1 Cor 11.29

 

[greenguzzi]

Not so. It should be the norm for all local congregations.

I would submit that you are not "..rightly discerning the body..." 1 Cor 11.29

Nope, the exact opposite actually:
Revelation 2:2-5

 

[greenguzzi]

A few miles south of me there is a lovely little café. It used to be a shoe factory, and it still has the original shoe factory sign above the door. Even though it's a great café, anyone looking to get shoes would be disappointed.

Some churches (congregations) are like that. People still go there, and some even enjoy doing so. However they stopped being a church a long time ago; the lampstand was removed, but no one took down the "church" sign. "Rightly discerning the body" is knowing when this has happened.

 

[Dave-W]

Nope, the exact opposite actually:
Revelation 2:2-5

Those verses do not speak to the issue at all.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If you are saying that changing churches is like changing spouses, then you are a freaking moron.

Not very nice language from someone who espouses "tolerance" and wears a Christian label.

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matt 5:22)

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Nope, the Body isn't a congregation. The Body is the Church Invisible. Christ has only one Body.
We put up signs like "Baptist" or "Anglican" or "Messianic" or "Episcopalian", but they are simply man-made constructs.
I was once very committed to a wonderful congregation, that saved me from hell. But they moved into heresy, so I moved. (Or more correctly, they moved.)
To be as connected to a congregation as to one's arm is surely idolatry.

Churches are individual bodies. There are addressed that way numerous times in the NT.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I'm still amazed that this thread has not been shut down. Great job by the mods here for moderating yet keeping the thread alive. IMO the moderators can be a bit heavy-handed on CF at times, but this is an obvious case of them doing well.

Great job, Mods!

 

[greenguzzi]

Not very nice language from someone who espouses "tolerance" and wears a Christian label.

Did I espouses tolerance here? Well maybe I did, but I'm not really very tolerant. Sorry if I mislead you.
I'm not a very good Christian either, but I do try.

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother

I'm not angry, just a bit annoyed.

Churches are individual bodies. There are addressed that way numerous times in the NT.

Yes, and sometimes some of those individual bodies get their candlesticks removed. When that happens it is foolish to hang around.

 

[pat34lee]

Oh for goodness sake! Do we really have to do this all again?

The Bible is the most complex "book" in existence. If you really think that it plainly says anything about something as complex as the role of women (for example), then you are seriously deluded.

No, I just believe what he says, whether it would be my choice or not. Too many people put their ideology first, and either force the bible to fit or ignore the parts they don't like.

 

[pat34lee]

So where is their discipleship? Who trained them in the christian walk?

That is the problem. Who gets discipled these days? Very few even teach about it, much less practice it. If the law was done away with, as many Christians believe, what need to live a certain way? Just to please God?

 

[pat34lee]

Women were highly esteemed, kept uneducated and treated like property. A slight improvement over the pagans possibly.
Women don't want to be esteemed, they want to be - and should be - treated as equal to men; because they are.

It is in the NT that we are to submit to one another, and that husbands should honour their wives. When put into context there is no way that a husband has any unilateral authority over his wife. Just mutual submission and honour.

You should read Proverbs 31:10-31

And your NT quote is wrong. Read Ephesians 5.

Wives are to submit to their husbands. Husbands are to love their wives as their own body and as Christ loved the church. A man should sooner die than treat his wife as less than himself.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

 

[greenguzzi]

You should read Proverbs 31:10-31

And your NT quote is wrong. Read Ephesians 5.

Wives are to submit to their husbands. Husbands are to love their wives as their own body and as Christ loved the church. A man should sooner die than treat his wife as less than himself.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

I didn't misquote the NT. It's just that I read more than just one or two proof texts that I happen to agree with - which is more than what you seem to be doing. You could find what I was referring to if you wanted to, but that would defeat your argument so I would understand why you might not bother.

Proverbs 31 is great. It actually supports my broader argument inasmuch as it outlines how things should be.
However it says nothing about how women were or are treated, just how they should be.

 

[greenguzzi]

No, I just believe what he says, whether it would be my choice or not. Too many people put their ideology first, and either force the bible to fit or ignore the parts they don't like.

Possibly so. But judging by your words, you seem to be guilty of this too.

 

[greenguzzi]

That is the problem. Who gets discipled these days? Very few even teach about it, much less practice it. If the law was done away with, as many Christians believe, what need to live a certain way? Just to please God?

The vast majority of Christians that I know personally are being discipled.
Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they are not fellow disciples on the same road as you.

 

[Dave-W]

If the law was done away with, as many Christians believe, what need to live a certain way? Just to please God?

"Please God?" What a concept .....

 

[Paidiske]

A rather Pauline concept. Or at least, he upholds it as an ideal in 1 Thess 2:4 and 4:1.