One of the most serious problems of Christians (and we are all guilty of this) is selective literalism. We choose which passages we want to apply literally; we shout those and we ignore all the others that we don’t like.

In Acts 16, we have the story of the beginning of the church in Philippi. Paul had been directed there by a vision of God. He usually began his evangelizing in the synagogue where he could reach the Jews. But there was no synagogue in Philippi. (To have a synagogue you had to have 10 Jewish men--women and children did not count.)

He found a group of women praying—apparently no men. So he began telling them about Jesus, and one woman, Lydia, opened her heart to God and so did other members of her household. She was a wealthy woman with a large house, and she invited Paul and his companions to stay at her home. He accepted, and her home apparently became the first "house church" in Europe. She was no doubt the "leader" of this young church. So far as the account goes, there were no men in the beginning

Now the irony of this is of course is our "enlightened Bros. here and a some sisters, probably would not dream of starting a church with a bunch of women! They would say, "You have to have some men to start a church." Apparently Paul did not think so.

In the 4th chapter of Philippians, he names two women of the church as his co-workers who "struggled beside me in the work of the gospel." Does this sound as though he told them always to be silent in church? Or that they must not proclaim or teach the gospel to men as well as women? If Paul really believed that as a universal principle, he surely would have included it in his letter to this church—that had been begun with women!

So if Paul was not sexist in his activities, and I think it is obvious from all accounts that he was not, why did he write those few references that make him sound like a male chauvinist?


I Corinthians was clearly a letter written by Paul to a church that had a lot of troubles: a) divided loyalties—some said they followed Paul, some Peter, some Apollos, some Christ; b) sexual immorality among members; c) people taking each other to court d) eating meat offered to idols; e) order in worship services, and others. We have a lot of the same problems.

It is in this same letter that the phrase "women should be silent in the church" appears. There are many possible explanations of that. But it is sufficient for me to know that Paul could not possible have meant that literally since he had just explained how women could and should pray and prophesy in public gatherings.

In the same 14th chapter Paul explains how important the gift of prophecy is in evangelism and in teaching. We need to read all of this recognizing that Paul is speaking to a first century situation in a particular town.

Someone question me, when I stated that the issue was authority, God does have a divine order, man is the head, and if in this time man sees fit to put a woman over a congregation as Paul saw fit to use women, there is no usurping of authority.

Titles mean nothing, in reference to ones salvation, however God said that these offices are given of him. Ones should be very careful of how they speak in reference to others calling, YOU ARE NOT GOD, and in your finite wisdom, you may may speak against what GOD is working in another.

Be Blessed

Views: 6

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Paul was very clearly mysogonistic in some passages and he states in those passages that it is his personal ideology and not from God. I agree anyone can start a church (man or woman),but it takes the Spirit to establish the church and build the church. A simple study of customs of the time will explain Paul's thought on that matter and it does not refer to preaching.
I have to agree with you. His distrust of women was something deeply rooted in him spiritually (tradition). I think it admirable of him to state that not God but it was in his opinion how some things should be done. Led by the Spirit one would have a confidence in themselves that they are being led right.
The church is very well known for their "selective literalism."
I call it being hypocritical.
Bishop, I wasn't going to go there, however, I've seen individuals presented with the truth in scripture and they turn a deaf ear to it. In reference to many issues.

You know if the word hits me, it just hits me and I have to do better, but to ignore is even more incomprehensible to me

RSS

© 2024   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service