What is Wrong with going to Church?

Didn't say they couldn't, just time for a few good men to step up to the plate.
We never read the book of Peter wife in the. nt

BeforeThereWas said:

Egalitarianism is group consensus, including
BTW

Click to expand...

Or equality of value as persons. That does not deny factors such as maturity or gifting, but is will take issue with a male hierarchical structure and a mandated principle.

John
NZ

BeforeThereWas said:

Yes, but there are distinctions in function, as established by the word of God.

Agreed, but not gender specific


Biblical teaching authority is not a matter of lording over anyone AS an authority figure, as is practiced in such cults as "Church of Christ."

Agreed, but often ignored. Domestically some teachings have led to male abuse, and teaching of all but total submission to one's pastor is not just confined to cults.

Wrong! If you delve into the Greek, when Paul addressed the "brethren," in his epistles, the Greek word translated "brethren" is GENDER SPECIFIC (masculine), not neuter or feminine.

Relying strictly on the weaknesses of English translations most generally leads to gross error.BTW

Click to expand...

Well Paul began his letter with these words:
1 Cor 1:2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ — their Lord and ours: NIV

Also any such letter would be read aloud to all those present - ie the church. It was the corporate body who Paul addressed, all of them were to know and be responsible for any corrections.

John
NZ

Johnnz said:

Or equality of value as persons. That does not deny factors such as maturity or gifting, but is will take issue with a male hierarchical structure and a mandated principle.

John
NZ

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying here since your grammar is difficult to understand, but if you're talking about the institutionalized clergy class and ecclesiastical structures, I agree.

The early Church founded it's leadership within the mature men of the faith. Those who might take exception to that will have to change all the Greek manuscripts from which most of our Bibles were translated in order to make their beliefs appear consistent with those manuscripts.

I don't think anyone here was trying to say that women can never be spiritually mature or of equal value. Leadership within the Church isn't a matter of one's value, it's about what the Lord established. That's what matters.

BTW

Johnnz said:

Well Paul began his letter with these words:
1 Cor 1:2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ — their Lord and ours: NIV

Also any such letter would be read aloud to all those present - ie the church. It was the corporate body who Paul addressed, all of them were to know and be responsible for any corrections.

John
NZ

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I see the parallel your trying to draw here. I thought we were talking about Church leadership.

Now we're talking about the corporate nature of the Church?

Ok. I can agree with that. We are one body.

Please clarify your point for me.

Thanks

BTW

Episaw said:

Very well put BeforeThereWas especially the "truths not under the control of the subjective ism of modern society."

I have been looking at this subject for about 10 years and in most cases, people seem to be scurrying around scripture to support feminist doctrine in the church, as though women had just been discovered.

Prior to all this women played an integral role in the church but I don't remember them agitating to be the top dog, or equal top dog with men and spouting all sorts of weird and wonderful texts that proved from scripture they should be equal top dog.

And I note that until feminist embarked upon their crusade for equality, the church didn't. makes you think doesn't it.

Click to expand...

Amen.

BTW

Norah63 said:

Women in the pulpit, that is when I voted with my feet and left the building.
We may be expected to cook, clean and teach the kids, but to do the preaching too is
just the limit. Where are the men? Let them open up and pour out their hearts before the Lord.
The time has always been ripe, and today even more so. Preach nothing but repentance to this generation.

Click to expand...

Norah, very well said, sister. The battering rams of post modernism have no effect upon me. I speak the word of God, and those who won't receive what scripture says, well, they will continue subjugating the word of God to rules of interpretation very much like those used by mormons and jehovah's witnesses.

BTW

Johnnz said:

I'm not sure you have read your NT closely enough.


John
NZ

Click to expand...

You'll have to do better than this to convince others of your personal interpretations.

BTW

BeforeThereWas said:

I'm not sure I see the parallel your trying to draw here. I thought we were talking about Church leadership.

Now we're talking about the corporate nature of the Church?

Ok. I can agree with that. We are one body.

Please clarify your point for me.

Thanks

BTW

Click to expand...

Hi,

Yes, leadership is being discussed. But I am not sure we adopt a NT model of leadership when it is discussed. In fact the word only occurs twice in Hebrews in the NT.

Anyway, the point I was making is that we would take a serious problem within the church to the pastor and/or elders. Paul presented the gathered church with the issues and his advice, for them all to be aware of their responsibility to set things right. Similarly in Acts on the issue of what Gentiles were expected to follow was debated by the apostles in the presence of the saints. That seems to indicate a more corporate way of operating that we most commonly see today.

Hope this helps

John
NZ

Common morals are not discussed in many a service today.
(preaching is not discussing, discussion is others speaking with you)
It was at a presidential prayer breakfast that a good word was spoken.
Telling our leader that it was a moral problem our country was having, not a money problem. Read your Scripture. Good admonition!

Johnnz said:

Hi,

Yes, leadership is being discussed. But I am not sure we adopt a NT model of leadership when it is discussed. In fact the word only occurs twice in Hebrews in the NT.

Anyway, the point I was making is that we would take a serious problem within the church to the pastor and/or elders. Paul presented the gathered church with the issues and his advice, for them all to be aware of their responsibility to set things right. Similarly in Acts on the issue of what Gentiles were expected to follow was debated by the apostles in the presence of the saints. That seems to indicate a more corporate way of operating that we most commonly see today.

Hope this helps

John
NZ

Click to expand...

Oh. Ok. I thought you were saying that egalitarianism was the biblical model for the Church, with which I disagree when I hear it.

The Bible nowhere upholds an egalitarian model for Church leadership, but I agree that all were present when various events took place for decision-making, etc.

If the latter is what you're saying, then we're in agreement.

BTW

Johnnz said:

Or equality of value as persons.

Click to expand...

I thought we already agreed there is equality in the arena of value.

That does not deny factors such as maturity or gifting,

Click to expand...

Again, I agree that maturity and gifting are not differentiated on the basis of gender.

but is will take issue with a male hierarchical structure and a mandated principle.

Click to expand...

That doesn't say much of anything if you don't define your use of the term "hierarchical."

Teaching authority and leadership within the Church were mantles placed upon the elders and the men within the Church. Paul addressed the "brothers" (which is gender specific) ten times more than he ever addressed deacons, elders, bishops, etc.

The bottom line, from scripture, functions such as "pastor" have no job description as we see being practiced within man-made, institutionalized church organizations today and historically.

Elders, on the other hand, were simply men who were mature in the faith, and they were the men who served as bastions against heresy creeping into the body. The plurality of elder men pastored without lording over the people. Authoritarianism within the Church is a creation of religious men, not God. The men who were apostles served a function within the Church, just as the elders serve a function, the deacons served a function, the bishops served a function.

Functions are not position. Functions sometimes reside within the realm of distinction of gender, whether defenders of feministic theology like that fact or not.

In Christ there are not gender distinctions.

However, in the family, there are distinctions, and in the Church there are distinctions that same Lord created to exist in those two realms.

So, when you use terms such as "hierarchical" without defining what you mean by your use of that word, we're left with a big blank. Hierarchy suggests varying levels, which is false in relation to the Church, for we are ALL on the same level, even though men serve in specific functions just as the women serve in specific functions that is not for men to serve. That's just the way it is irregardless of dislike.

Value and gifting are not realities one can use as battering rams against functions based upon gender. Homosexuality is a reality based upon the gender specifics, and its an assault against the family, within which there are indeed gender distinctions in the arenas of morality ad function. No amount of argumentation on the basis of value and gifting will ever erase those facts clearly outlined within scripture.

BTW

A couple of brief comments.

'Brother' is often used collectively to refer to the whole church,male and female. The New NIV translation adopts this understanding.

'Hierarchical' is where we have a 'chain of command' of some kind. It also is there in the clergy/laity divide in my opinion.

John
NZ

Is that church isn't a place. Therein lies the whole key.

Teaching authority and leadership within the Church were mantles placed upon the elders and the men within the Church. Paul addressed the "brothers" (which is gender specific) ten times more than he ever addressed deacons, elders, bishops, etc. et. al.

Click to expand...

A great post BeforeThereWas.

Is that church isn't a place. Therein lies the whole key.

Click to expand...

Humanbn, you will have to revisit your post as it does not make sense.

"is that church isn't a place."

Yes that was a very enlightning post that BTW shared. A problem with going to a regular church (if there is such a place), is that the leadership takes the authority and avlods the responsibility.
All things common has been very hard to decern in most groups.

Johnnz said:

A couple of brief comments.

'Brother' is often used collectively to refer to the whole church,male and female. The New NIV translation adopts this understanding.

Click to expand...

The NIV is known for its liberal, feministic leanings, so it's not rocket science to realize the writers of that version will desire to inject whatever fits with their bias. The scholars on the NIV team trying to pit themselves against the vast array of scholars who worked on the NAS and the KJV is utter folly on their part. The NIV team firmly believed in trying to make their work more relevant to modern, cultural leanings. It's about sales moreso than credibility. The various publications of the NIV through the years have implemented changes that give ample evidence to their changing bias and sensitivity to their follower's wishes.

To say that the gender specific reference in Greek really isn't gender specific in real meaning is to classify the original writer's as incompetent for not actually writing what they meant. There are a number gender neutral words they could have chosen in the Greek language, but they didn't.

Therefore, your basis for proof from an inferior source falls flat on its face.

'Hierarchical' is where we have a 'chain of command' of some kind. It also is there in the clergy/laity divide in my opinion.

Click to expand...

There are a number of things I asked of you, or commented upon that you still haven't addressed, some of which your grammar was questionable, leaving us with not knowing exactly what you meant. This is one such case.

Taking a stab at it, if you're conclusion is that it's wrong for such a divide to exist, then I agree. Nowhere did Jesus or His apostles indicate an authority structure whereby some were elevated above others, for it's written that we are all on the same level as brothers and sisters, although we serve in different capacities and possess different giftings.

Now, if you're talking in relation to institutionalized church organizations, they have the freedom to establish whatever they want. Heck, they can even worship the devil (and many do), but where the Church (capital "C") is concerned, this one body is not at all defined by the plethora of institutionalized church organizations. The autonomy of organized religion places it on a different foundation than upon Christ Jesus.

Christ Jesus is the Head of a body populated by PEOPLE who believe upon Him. Jesus is not the Head of real estate, buildings and man-made organizational structures that elevate some men above others.

BTW[/quote]

humanbn said:

Is that church isn't a place. Therein lies the whole key.

Click to expand...

Good point. How can one go to what he or she is. I'm already IN the Church no matter where I go or what I do. I can't GO to what I'm already a part.

The goofy inconsistencies of modern language and grammar, although winked at by the majority who make up what's basically defined as the "unthinking masses," is evidence to that fact that the majority are no better than court jesters and fools who routinely make a mockery of themselves on a daily basis in the eyes of the Lord, the angels, knowledgeable people who watch and hear them and their foolishness, and even the demons.

BTW

BeforeThereWas said:

The NIV is known for its liberal, feministic leanings, so it's not rocket science to realize the writers of that version will desire to inject whatever fits with their bias. The scholars on the NIV team trying to pit themselves against the vast array of scholars who worked on the NAS and the KJV is utter folly on their part. The NIV team firmly believed in trying to make their work more relevant to modern, cultural leanings. It's about sales moreso than credibility. The various publications of the NIV through the years have implemented changes that give ample evidence to their changing bias and sensitivity to their follower's wishes.

Therefore, your basis for proof from an inferior source falls flat on its face.

Click to expand...

[/quote]

That's just a lot of unsubstantiated personal view. Let's look at NT usage of brother in Paul's letters.

Rom 1:13 The whole church
Rom 7:1 The whole church
Rom 7:4 The whole church
Rom 8:12 The whole church
Rom 8:29 The whole church
Rom 9:3 The whole church
Rom 10:1 The whole church
Rom 11:25 The whole church
Rom 12:1 The whole church
Rom 15:14 The whole church
Rom 16:17 The whole church
1 Cor 1:10 The whole church
1 Cor 1:11 The whole church
1 Cor 1:26 The whole church
1 Cor 2:1 The whole church
1 Cor 3:1 The whole church
1 Cor 4:6 The whole church
1 Cor 6:8 The whole church
1 Cor 7:24 The whole church
Plus many more. Also Hebrews, James, Peter and John

Your opinion about bible translations was apparently stated without reading the bible carefully. The KJV uses brethren, which is an a gender inclusive word by the way.

John
NZ