NewStats: 3,265,415 , 8,186,663 topics. Date: Saturday, 14 June 2025 at 08:14 PM 69661e

Some of us might have heard of the recent attacks in Glasgow Airport (see pictures here)



Recently, I came across a few articles bordering on concerns as to whether any religion should be questioned. The one of particular interest was one that was boldly titled: We must be allowed to criticise Islam by Will Cummins.  Here is a condensed form of the article:


       "The problem is that a virulent hatred of Muslims can no more be racism than
       a virulent hatred of Marxists or Tories. Nobody is a member of a race by choice.
       Such groups are protected from attack because it is unfair to malign human beings
       for something they cannot help. However, nobody is a member of a community of
       belief except by choice, which is why those who have decided to enter or remain
       within one are never protected. Were such choices not open to the severest censure,
       we could no longer call our country a democracy. . .

       All that divides a religion from a secular ideology is something whose existence -
       supernatural - is disputed by adherents of the latter. To privilege supernatural
       belief-systems by law would be to impose the view of the faithful about this on everyone,
       the situation that prevailed in the Middle Ages. This time, it is Islam, not Christianity, that
       New Labour wants to impose on Christendom.

       A society in which one cannot revile a religion and its is one in which there
       are limits to the human spirit. The Islamic world was intellectually and economically
       wrecked by its decision to put religion beyond the reach of invective, which is simply
       an extreme form of debate. By so doing, it put science and art beyond the reach of
       experiment, too. Now, at the behest of Muslim foreigners who have forced themselves
       on us, New Labour wants to import the same catastrophe into our own society."

     Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/11/ixhome.html


What do y'all think about this: should a democracy be allowed to criticize Islam or not?

When a Sultan uses the word "counter", his almarijis and talakawas understand what he's calling for. We are too familiar now with pictures like this:



. . . and the Sultan's remarks are not far removed from the same ideas.

TV01:

@ Lafile,

Please don't be upset that Stimulus did not answer your posers. Only he rarely does.

Thank you, TV01. If you refuse to see where I've tried to answer your questions, there would be no need for the above. You can do him a good turn in answering them rather than failing to do so yourself.

Cheers.

@TV01,

I knew for a long time you had one desire: to have me nailed. It's a miracle I've survived your crucifixion thus far.

TV01:

In an effort to nail Stimulus down to actually stating something, let me ask this,

1. is Leadership the same as Eldership? And please explain Eldership.
2. is all Leadership equal

I guess you continue to deliberate close your eyes to my posts - as if I haven't offered answers clearly enough.

I offered to define leadership here:
(https://nairaland.macsoftware.info/nigeria/topic-61492.160.html#msg1259802);

. . . and I have nowhere stated that leadership and eldership are the same, but that the latter is only one aspect of leadership -- "it is not the ONLY leadership role in the NT" (https://nairaland.macsoftware.info/nigeria/topic-61492.224.html#msg1266122)

What you're asking me to do is endlessly repeat myself; and if you are deliberately refusing to read issues, I don't think you're inviting a discussion at all.

TV01:

Never. My stance clearly infers that it is both church and home. Or please show where I have ever done so.

"order and authority emanate out of the family" (https://nairaland.macsoftware.info/nigeria/topic-61492.192.html#msg1261901)

And my question was: "you can't make out which is which?"

TV01:

Just that He sent them. Does that mean that tyhey were co-equals. called together, comissioned together. When did God speak to Miriam to disclose her mission to her.

It's a simple question I offered, TV01. If you're not going to discuss it, what's the point offering you further answers for you to come back with assertions in denial?

As regards your concern for "co-equals", I already said this: "Everyone each had a specific leadership role to fulfill; but bottomline here was that they were leaders OVER God's people!!" (https://nairaland.macsoftware.info/nigeria/topic-61492.192.html#msg1264592)

I really shouldn't mind you having me repeat myself endlessly - I'm used to it by now; and you can "nail" me all you wish. The one thing I ask is that you don't drive the nails in the pretence that you haven't read my answers to your endlessly repeated questions, especially when you're not even discussing issues but have rather been interested in denying them.

TV01:

That Moses seconded her, is good enough for God.
God Who confirms the word of His servant, And performs the counsel of His messengers; Isaiah 44:26
You are just running real hard and not making any ground. Where did she ever give instruction, issue commands or take the lead (except over other women?). Enough already.

Okay, I'm going to just let you drivel on in your male ego - although it doesn't have any import on what we're discussing. Let me ask you this: is it only those who give instructions that are leaders? Is that what made Aaron a leader by God's sending in Micah 6:4? Are people made leaders in the NT because they are set there in order to "give instructions"? The one thing that I asked of you as regards Micah 6:4, you haven't given me; rather, your male-pride is not even helping your arguments at all.

TV01:

It's better a good woman than an evil man. But that in no way overturns the divine order.

Is that your limp reply to your argument for Isaiah 3?

TV01:

If you have any more examples acrros testaments or dispensations, please don't be shy in outlining them.

Will do so in the course of our discussions, as I have never been shy stating my persuasions.

TV01:

As you claim I have no idea about Eldership, I lay the same claim against you regards Apostleship. The totality of Christian life and practice, ministry, gifts and talents are not limited to the established/mature congregation.

Right, I've asked you to look again at Ephesians 4:11 and make informed inputs. Too much to ask?

TV01:

You have tried to argue for women as elders and as equals in all capacities and at all levels. because no one has said that women cannot lead in some capacity, to some degree or indeed certain situations. To say your whole thrust has been to state the case for females as leaders is evidence of your bottling it.

It's either you're deliberately being mischievous here; or simply deliberately assuming your allegations against me. Let me show you how wrong are your accusations. These are my statements made in previous reders:

1. ""Everyone each had a specific leadership role to fulfill" (https://nairaland.macsoftware.info/nigeria/topic-61492.192.html#msg1264592)

2. "Leadership is a t exercise; but that does not necessarily infer that whatever a man is called to do, so must a woman by default do likewise." (https://nairaland.macsoftware.info/nigeria/topic-61492.224.html#msg1265989)

Do the above sound like I was making women equal in ALL capacities and at ALL levels? If you're only interested in being accusative and deliberately unreasonable, I lose nothing in leaving this thread for you, TV01.

TV01:

One final question. Can a plurality of female only elders lead a church?

Keep taking refuge in equivocation. It is more honest to take a stance an lets discuss, than to continually argue both sides, state all cases and take no position.

My position was clear enough, even if you deliberately refused to calmly reason them through. I thank you for your accusative spirit; and until I find grace in you for a discussion, you can as well keep your pride - I really don't need it. 

Regards.

@Kuns,

No need for the deliberately illiterate stories you're telling. I asked two questions which up until now you've been making noise about and not making any effort to answer them:

     -- where is the William Shakespeare in the list of committees who translated the KJV?

     -- where is the William Tinsdales in the link where you dribbled your weak story from?

Now, you're coming back as an errand boy with another fabu - the same one you haven't been able to establish as honest enough to make you human to your own cause.

You guys should just for once try and be honest to yourselves - it cost nothing to do so.

@Kuns,

Kuns:

Stimulus, You have no excuse Now, You know you are worshipping SATAN, and that Christianity is a fabrication of the truth.

Weak-minded souls like you will continue to deceive yourselves with your phobia in order to accuse others of Satan worship. I wonder why my posts in several threads have not been demontrating the same demonic illiteracy that continue to pop up in your posts; and when you're asked to take a closer look at yours, you ram your nostrils into the wall and then turn to make childish rants? Was it not your alter ego Horus who called for my "eradication"?

I don't hate you, Kuns. But if you continue to let your melanin self-enslavement run amuck, it would only highlight your defeatist mentality (no thanks though to your 500 year old antiquated entries). 

Dear TV01,

TV01:

Stimulus contines to obsfucate over leadership and eldership without making any specific declarations. he talks of "Leadership Capacity" and refuses to say whether there is an Eldership authoritry, and wether that eldership includes women.

I'd then have to take it that you're so much in a hurry to misread issues so that your comfort zone is not seriously rocked. Hey, I've already offered that eldership is just one aspect of leadership (it is not the ONLY leadership role in the NT).

Second, I've offered that the two are not the same thing - and that is why Ephesians 4 should have been carefully examined in your reders. Third, you could as well offer me a clear instance where your "overall leadership/authority" is another term for "eldership" - in which case the elders are leaders over apostles!!

Until you understand issues clearly as to what leadership points to, as well offer the verse for "overall leadership/authority" as pointing to eldership, you'll keep marking time on the same spot with no substance to your further arguments.

TV01:

If they are equal in authority in the congregation, it is not a question of women usurping men, rather one of lower authority usurping higher.

I've also tried to offer you sage's reference to Korah as an example of a man trying to usurp authority - so it is not only women who are to be seen as doing so just because you happen to be unable to read beyond just one single verse.

Kuns:

If Jesus was God then we are all in big trouble , imagine god dying for a minute (not to mention three days), imagine the havoc Satan and the Devil could cause in a minute.

We know how much you'd want to persuade yourself into believing your phobia. Is that why your melanin brother Mugabe is busying himself with the same thing you've been complaining about?

Hurry, there's no time to lose before Mugabe wipes out a whole generation of your nubian melanin clan on that part of African soil!!

See how you guys are confusing yourselves, lol.

Jen33:

If we had been invaded and colonised by the Chinese, You ''Christian'' slaves would be here today singing the praises of the BUDDHA.

Kuns:

The Cauasian enslavers never gave US Christ or God , Although that was the lie they want to use to justify the kidnapping (Slavery) of our people.

@Kuns,

For the second part of your invented story, we know it's a sign of tired thinking. You can relax now - melanin in your blood must be running low.

@Kuns,

You should also be happy that we have been helping you come out of your lie. How long will you continue enslaving yourself under the black clan theory that hasn't helped you out of your phobia?

@Kuns,

Kuns:

Now, Stimulus, Go get a bronze utensil from your kitchen and place it on your cooker and come back and tell us what colour you get.

Pally, don't make me laugh. Look at YOUR argument earlier:

Kuns:

Now anything you burn in a furnace or oven will come out black.

You said "anything" you burn in a furnace will come out black; and I offered that your statement was a fallacy, and gave the example of gold. With all your "overstanding" you are still negating your arguments further.

Put gold in a furnace and see if it comes out black. If it does, please come back and tell us how you did it! 

@TayoD,

I almost don begin wonder where una dey; but thank God for your re-apeparance!

TayoD:

1. A female cannot exercise any form of authority over a male - TV's camp.

2. A female can lead a male and by entension exercise authority over a male - Stimulus.

3. Stimulus has a clause on her position, which is that a female cannot teach in church.

My persuasion still remains number 2 above without Stimulus' "footnote" as stated in Number 3.

Well, let me clarify my footnote (if you can allow that):

Leadership is a t exercise; but that does not necessarily infer that whatever a man is called to do, so must a woman by default do likewise.

TayoD:

When the issue is the body of Christ, males are not in authority over females unless you are telling us the Body of Christ is made up of 3 different : Christ - Males - Females.

Any member of that Body usurps authority over Christ when they speak without delegated authority from Him. Male/Females are equal of that Body.

That again has been one of my concerns, and you have expressed it so well here. Bless.

TayoD:

The issue here is headship which we know occurs only in 3 relationships: The Godhead, The Church and Marriage.

Bless you again!

TayoD:

Parents are not the "head" of their children as it negates your intepretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3 where you wrongly interprete the word man there as meaning male. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Going by your interpretation, a male child can never be under the authority of his parents becuase his 'head' is Christ, and neither can he be under the authority of his mother since a female cannot have authority over a male. These are the inevitable concomitance of your position.
Your first analogy here is very wrong. What union are you refering to that has Christ - Male - Female as ? Certainly not the church and not marriage.

See why I have been so hungry for our senior teachers to come and weigh in on this subject? Analytical, wey you?

TayoD:

Let us look at 1 Corinthians 11:3 again.
But I would have you know, that

1. the head of every man is Christ;Now this is not talking about the male. The word 'man' here is used generically to mean every body within the Body of Christ. Otherwise, you are telling us that Christ is the Head of every male, whether born again or not. Now Paul explains this further in Ephesians 5:23 - For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: Colosians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: These scriptures are eloquent testimony that Christ is the Head of the Church and not the Head of males as you are erroneously interpreting it.

2. and the head of the woman is the man;This is talking about marriage where a male has pre-eminence over the female. That preeminence does not exist within the Body of Christ despite the fact that the Chursh recognises the distinction and will not permit a wife to usurp authority (as I explained above) over her husband.

3. and the head of Christ is God.Now this is talking about the Godhead where Christ and the Holy Spirit are subject to the Father. All this despite the fact that the 3 are ONE.

This scripture in 1 Corinthians specifies the 3 bodies where 'headship' exists. We need to get this right to properly interprete the scriptures we are all wrestling with.
There is no principle that is taught in the O.T. that is violated in the New. Besides didn't Paul refer to the Law when he was doing the teaching about authority within the home never being violated in Church? 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

TayoD, I thank God that He has further blessed me on this topic with your huge inputs. No, it is not simply because you seemed to have agreed partly with me; but even if you had not, believe me, you have helped me see what I hitherto had difficulty seeing.

I used to be all out for a male-only leadership/authority; but when I began to study the Word more and saw how wrong I was, the answers began to come in bits. Now I'm so blessed by your latest reder - and may God bless you and everyone else (including TV01 and sage) here.

Regards.

@TV01,

TV01:

Don’t muddy the waters in an effort to blindside us. Yes, anyone can usurp authority but the scripture in view clearly speaks to women not teaching or usurping men in a church setting. The bible teaches the male preserve of eldership in church

You're both agreeing with my premise nd accusing me of muddying the waters. TV01, don't let your heart race so badly. Leadership is NOT a chauvinistic preserve; and you cannot use eldership (which you really don't understand) as if that alone defines leadership!

Secondly, you're trying to cut corners here to suit your prejudice. Were you not previously projecting the idea that 'usurping authority' was a matter for the home? But now you're bringing it round rather to help your "male preserve of eldership" in the church!! Do you really have a ground to stand on, or you're so desperate push your male ego that you can't make out which is which?

TV01:

There are loads of gender neutral scripture that speak to obedience and submission. The scripture in Timothy 2 speak specifically to a congregational setting.

Aahh, you've finally crossed carpets! So 1 Timothy 2 is no longer applying to your idea of a family setting; but because you're desperate to smooth over your argument, you have to now apply it to "congregational setting". Smooth operator, not so fast!

TV01:

Miriam did not lead co-equally with Moses and/or Aaron. The one place she was noted as leading, it was over other women.

And what is the meaning of Micah 6:4 where God speaks of having sent all three - Moses, Aaron, and Miriam?

TV01:

I ceded your point about Deborah. I accept that she was a judge in the same capacity and with the same authority as the other judges.

Bless you. Em, sage. . . where you dey? Do I still keep my fingers crossed for you on this one here?

TV01:

I noted that the whole era of “Judges” was aberrant due to the meltdown of the time.

Maybe so. That would simply make the arguemnt for men-only also a non-issue. The point, however, was that God actually raised up a woman and invested her with authority as He did the men He had called in the same capacity of leadership over the entire nation.

TV01:

I also noted that Isaiah, clearly shows that things are grave when women take overall leadership

Isaiah 3 does not establish the idea that women in leadership roles suggest abberation among God's people. Men also have been principal detractors to God's divine economy among His people (see vss. 14 & 15). But the point in vs. 13 was that the prophet used it sarcastically - as again could be seen in Nahum 3:13.

TV01:

We have agreed severally that OT paradigms are not to be wholesale applied to NT life.

Noted also is the fact that your two instances , one inferred and the other contingent, do not overturn a historical and generational pattern

Those are not the only examples I offered. It was because dear sage kept on arguing for a male-only leadership from the OT that I constantly referred to those two examples until after having discussed them, you now see the point. However, there are examples in the NT which I have lightly touched upon, and as we move on will again be discussed in detail to highlight the case for women in leadership roles among God's people.

TV01:

You are still playing to the gallery and trying to please everyone, whilst bending over backwards to justify your interpretation of scripture.

Okay, thanks. If I was actually doing that then you'd not have had to argue this far with me. How could I have been pleasing everyone when indeed you're happen not to be pleased at all, eh?

TV01:

Christianity, salvation, service, gifts and grace are not about leadership. Leadership is just one facet of Christian life. The fact that scripture in this instance defines it in gender should not trouble anyone.

Salvation and service are not to be confused - and service actually indicates some connection with leadership. How? Would not I Cor. 12:28 help us a little here -- "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."??

Are apostles leaders? If not, would it not suggest that they had no authority but were merely gifts? what you said earlier: "Leadership is ministry" - would that also apply here??

TV01:

All Christian service/ministry is sacrifice. Eldership is no different, indeed, the sacrifices required, could compromise other areas where women have responsibility. Women carry a greater burden in the home and it would simply be unfair to expect them to give as much in church. And where they are free from burdensome home duties, they should focus on helping the younger women fulfill their roles in the home.

Yep - and I believe the core concerns of this thread are about whether women can be leaders or not? That is what continues to inform my inputs.

Cheers.

@TV01,

TV01:

On the contrary, your so called fac that “women are also called to tly exercise leadership” is a non fact. Because no where are they called. The scriptures that outline the qualities for leadership in a congregational setting are clear and unambiguously applicable to males.

This is where you're clearly confusing issues for yourself. If you are thinking that eldership alone defines leadership, you have a huge problem understanding issues. The Body of Christ is bigger than a local congregation - and in Ephesians 4, I wonder if the gifts you read of in vs. 11 are issues that you are deliberately refusing to see up until this time!!

To make matters easier for you, please open that chapter and study it; and when you do, ask yourself there where you see the qualifications for eldership alone as if those gifts have to derive their authority from your idea of elders.

I'll offer you this: women are called alongside the men in the exercise of leadership in the Body of Christ, the Church. Leadership entails authority to care for others; and in the various capacities of leadership, I believe Ephesians 4 helps us understand this issue clearly enough. That is why I have both attempted to discuss it and apply them in practical ways; rather than theorize on them. The problem here is that you continue to make assertions in denial without so much as attempting to discuss them yourself; and in so doing, you're not giving any substance at all to this discussion other than merely fronting a few verses on what you call "overall leadership/authority".

Now, when you read Ephesians 4:11, I'd like to ask you this question: where is eldership in that chapter; and what do you make of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers? I guess you want to make these all subject to your idea of eldership - in which case an apostle has to be subject to an elder, yes? Rather than continue to scoot away from what is being offered there, at least make an attempt to look at what it says and see why your narrow views are hardly making any sense here.

TV01:

Nobody has denied Ephesians 4:11. But it in no way charges women with leadership of the local congregation in the presence of suitably qualified mature adult males.

To deny that Ephesians 4:11 points to an inclusive leadership exercise rather than an exclusive preserve of men is to deny that women are also called to leadership roles according to that text and its its explicatory verses following on around it.

TV01:

Yes it is sir. Scripture clearly and loudly proclaims it.

Please show me where it says that "overall leadership/authority" clearly and loudly is proclaimed as the exclusive preserve of men.

TV01:

Whether you apply the word as age or Christian, it matters not a jot.

It is this kind of arrogance that I will continue to challenge, because it is essentially the characteristic trait of prejudiced minds.

TV01:

1. The older/mature men are not pointed to minister to the younger/immature, as the men who are qualified for leadership will do so.
2. Likewise for the women. They are pointed to minister/teach on domestic, home making issues. It makes absolute sense for that not to take up congregational teaching time as it is specific to women.
3. There is no hint of gifting or calling, only maturity, be it in experience or by age. Force-fit doctrine going on here

The force-fit doctrine is thankfully yours. From Ephesians 4:11 - apostles (as only an example) would then mean that there is no hint as to their gifting or calling, yes? Bros, never try to narrow issues down to just your idea of eldership - and that is why I continue to edge you on to broaden your perspectives and see that there are various capacities of leadership!!

TV01:

Not at all, and it was not outlined as such. The outline for Eldership and the teaching aspect of it had already been outlined in the preceding chapter. You're still stretching.

I'm not stretching; I'm rather asking that you don't end your ideas on chapter 1 - go on to chapter 2 and see the point.

TV01:

Eldership is confined to suitably qualified males. Gifts, talents, ability and the like do not mean that one must be a leader or in themselves confer eldership. Neither are Leadership or Eldership pre-requisite to exercising gifts. The scriptures that speak to eldership are clear and plain, stop trying to spin them.

I'm not spinning nothing; rather I'm challenging your narrow ideas and constantly asking you go on and examine leadership for what it is in the Bible before making selective reading and hinging your persuasion on just a few verses. Is that too much to ask of you?

TV01:

Old chap, leadership is ministry. Just not one that everyone is called to, or one that everyone can aspire to at all levels. Eldership as leadership as ministry is confined to suitably qualified males.

Here, here, bros. . . do you read your own lines before you post? Let me break that line down:

"Leadership is ministry", you said -- and my question is: are men the only ones who are called to minister? If that is how you're still narrowing your views, it simply turns your whole argument on its head! Come back again and edit that line (or deny that you didn't say so), before I know what next to do with you.  

@Analytical,

How bodi? How is it that you senior discussants are letting the rest of us rascals alone on this thread?!? Abeg, please try and weigh in on this one O! There are issues I simply don't understand - and yours will be greatly appreciated as well.

I leant that God loves me as a Nigerian even though I never have had to apply for Israeli citisenship.

John 3:16 -- "God so loved the world. ."

Gal. 3:28 -- "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."



@somze, thank you for expressing my thoughts.

@lafile,

To be honest with you, I will not claim that I know as much as I should on any subject, much less this one. The one thing I do understand at the present is that tithing was commanded under the Law - that much we have agreed upon. Second, tithing does not have to always be interpreted as a commandment/mandatory exercise (I hope we can agree on that as well).

But then, why do I tithe? Is it just 10%? My answer is that my tithing is not restricted to 10% - because I don't believe that even under the Law tithes were merely 10% as such.

So what then? I don't see the issue of tithing as merely a matter of measuring exactly 10%. Rather, I see it as a matter of my committed response in worship to God.  I agree that merely stating it this way and not offering any verses as yet is not the same thing as discussing it. I would like to do so (but as occasion permits me).

As we continue to discuss, however, I'd like someone to please help us understanding the meaning of Hebrews 7:8  -- "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth."

I'm not basing everything for my persuasion on that one verse; but I'm asking for inputs to help us understand what it means.

@TV01,

TV01:

In many instances, the persuasions of many are determined by the preaching of a few!

I had no interest in prolonged wild debates - and that's why i stated my persuasions early enough.

TV01:

Command or not. Seems you are not sure?

Please go back and read my SEVERAL reders and try not pretending to make them what they are not.

TV01:

Please explain what blessings are attached to tithing/tithers, that are not accrued to giving/givers? Please show a clear distinction between them. Do said distinctions hold if the givers give less, the same or more? Anyone.

There we go again. Why has it been difficult for you to offer explanations of the verses I offered?

TV01:

I agree that doctrinally, the use of offerings is not the starting point, but the how, when and why. However, the discussion would not be complete if we did not go on to discuss how tithe offering, giving or money in it's totality was to be used in the Christian living. Regardless of peoples prejudices or experience.

I agree we should have discussed the many concerns on this topic, rather than narrowing it to the simplistic question of "Tithe or NOT?" Each time I thought we should do that, again and again both you and Hnd-holder would flag your yellow cards with "The Topic is: To Tithe or Not to Tithe?"

In that respect, I simply offered the terse answers leading up to your itting the obvious - 'YES, Christians can tithe (other than trying to label it as "voluntary tithing".'

TV01:

Your belief is not ed by scripture and your testimony is at best anecdotal. This is not a discussion about giving, as you clearly distinguish tithing from giving.

Well, I noticed you were in the habit of evading questions whenever I offered Scripture; and since my sharing with you in that regard was not leading anywhere, what was the point offering you more Scriptures to keep evading?

And besides sir, you made the point at first to query the suggestion for you to outline what you thought tithe really pointed to in the Word; but then again recently came back stating that: "it's no different to giving". So, I really don't know what you're driving at on turning down something and then coming back to ask if we could discuss it again.

TV01:

If you agree that any notion of tithing on whatever basis has been subsumed into the Christian grace of giving, then the whole discussion is mute. As long as you insist there is tithing distinct from giving, with benefits accrued thereto, you should be able to explain and expand on that position scripturally. As yet, no one has done so.

Is that another weak attempt to pretend that you deliberately did not read that at least someone - 4get_me - has attempted to distinguish between the various types of giving sometime earlier? What did you guys do with his beautifil input, other than the same assertions in denial when none of you came back to do what you're asking others to do?

TV01:

If some of us give by grace freely from the heart and are missing blessings from tithing, why would you for loves sake not enlighten us? If it's by grace we should avail ourselves and if it's by command, we should obey.

Several attempts have been made to enlighten you - it is a sad case that you rejected them and are still asking for the same thing. (If na my office you dey talk like this, dem for hold emergency meeting over your case!!)

TV01:

You claim to not be persuaded that tithing is a command, but persuaded to do so. Please explain why? It suggests your position to be one taken out of doubt or fear.

Lol, TV01. . . do you give anything at all? If you do so and it is not by commandment, is it out of fear or doubt - or the attempt to cover up and not sound out of place?

You're not really inviting a discussion; and I'm least interested in a roundabout exercise where you sit to make denials and repeatedly ask the same questions again and again.

Enjoy.

@TV01,

TV01:

If you mean complimentary as in equal in authority, then yes they do. For a start, there are no similar or equivalent qualifications for women outlined anywhere in the NT and those quoted are indisputably referring to men. In response to the points, in turn;

(a) Ministry roles yes, leadership roles, again yes, but in acknowledgment that men have seniority in leadership, as evidenced by the gender qualification for eldership.
(b) Balance maybe, but equality or neutrality, no way.
(c) tly maybe, equal, no. Partners no problem, equal partners no.

That the verses you offered earlier as qualifications for men do not in any way nullify the very fact that women are also called to tly exercise leadership in the gifts outlined in Ephesians 4:11. Your strain is an exclusive men-only leadership qualification has not helped in the consideration of those verses that speak to women in leadership.

TV01:

It absolutely is. Eldership is gender based. Exclusive to males.

First, eldership is not exclusive to men; neither are men in a place of 'overall authority' either.

TV01:

As you can plainly see and have obviously been misapplying, the verses speak to older brethren both male and female who do not actually hold office, but by dint of their age should be examples.

This simply tells me again that you haven't studied the meaning of those words. Age there is not referring to the idea of grey hairs. Rather, it speaks to maturity in the faith where such women who qualify by calling and gifting are in view.

TV01:

It clearly shows that older females are expected to engage in a ministry of teaching to younger women. End of story.

In which same case, older men would simply have to look at ministry towards younger men. Case closed.

TV01:

Like I have said repeatedly, if you want to ascribe “leadership” to these older women, fine, but it is still subject to the ministry of eldership, which is the preserve of suitably qualified, mature males.

Please, I ask one simple thing: could you just offer me the verse that says "overall leadership/authority" is exclusively ascribed to MEN?

TV01:

That particular plank of your argument is quite feeble and in fact is the only NT verse you have provided to buttress your position. Not a ing plank, more like one you should walk

You again confirm the fact that you're looking at one one verse and refusing to consider others - which again makes your argument quite untenable.

TV01:

Once again, the NT does not women as Church elders. That they are called to minister, that they have gifts, that their roles are equally important, that they are indispensable to the fullness of home and church life is not in dispute. But they are not called to eldership.

Leadership is not confined to your idea of eldership. Ministry gifts, divine commission, and authority are the three features of LEADERSHIP in both OT and NT. Trying to argue only the case of eldership as "overall authority" is a matter of assumption that ignores the whole issue of leadership in the various verses that speak to us on the subject. I've offered that you guys should look at Ephesians 4 again and again; but so far, all you have been doing is looking at only one set of verses to argue for a men-only idea. It simply will not do.

TV01:

A poor example, especially as it is based on your weak plank above. The area of women teaching is clearly defined. Likewise is the area (over the full/public congregation) they are not. Your colourful exegesis of James 3:1 does not help you either. All can teach, everyone can, but at levels. And at the full congregational level, only Elders, and then not even all elders do or should.

You can only consider my arguments weak because you wish it so; not because you really have been able to soundly refute the points I offered. I'm glad now that you've anticipated me on one issue: "not all elders do" (i.e., not all elders teach). The fallacy of your men-only theories is not even within the corridors of leadership; and when you can understand what exactly it means, then you will come round seeing indeed that your idea at best is only assertions in denial, rather than reason to the case.

TV01:

I suggest you swop you “leadership capacity” phrase for “ministry role”. You are doing women a bigger disservice and playing to the gallery.

I don't confuse leadership and ministry. To do that would make me another blind bat in what you guys have been arguing all along - and that is why you guys came making denials earlier against the case of women in leadership in the OT (until recently). Those who have been calling for a men-only leadership/authority (or "overall leadership/authority" should edit their own ideas first before asking others to do anything.

TV01:

At once suggesting they are leaders in equality with men, whilst at the same time noting that they can’t usurp authority or teach at all levels. More “neither fish nor fowl” theology.

What you really don't understand here is this: you're making out your own fishing net theology by constricting "usurp authority" to only women. Hello? This is why I offered sage to reconsider the core issue about Korah!! Korah was not a woman, but even he attempted to "usurp authority" in his rebellion against Moses.

This reminds me again of TayoD's question earlier about whether it is only by "teaching" that women can usurp authority. My answer was no, but rather that is only one example! There are numerous examples of both men and women trying to "usurp authority", and for people with a longer fishnet for men-only theology cannot even see the issue at all.

TV01:

And please stop Trying to use 1 Corinthians 11:11 to validate your case, it doesn’t. It reads from verse one, which indubitably shows the headship of male over female, but notes the complimentriness of the gender relationship.

Don't sob so loud. I only asked you to show me how I Cor. 11 speaks about the home situation, and not the sob you're returning here.

TV01:

Again, at best that can suggest “Complimentary leadership”, but not “Equal Leadership”

And your point is - that women again cannot be leaders?

TV01:

As for you dislike of the “overall leadership” distinction I make, I have repeatedly said the head of the Church is Christ. But a certain amount of authority is devolved within the body as a whole and a modicum with the plural male eldership.

I haven't said I dislike any term you use - I only asked you to defend them. Your complaining is making me laugh. Further, I asked for the references where such ideas are clearly enunciated in the word. Should I keep my fingers crossed for you, or you're going to litter the thread with the same sob complaints?

TV01:

So far you have two non-binding (one disputable and one aberrant) OT examples and nothing from the NT. In all the years of history, considering all the types and examples, reading the whole of the scriptural narrative, can you honestly say you see a pattern of co-equal or gender-neutral leadership?

Please do me one favour: if you are ing the two examples of Miriam and Deborah as disputable and abberrant, I would like you to go through those verses and offer why Deborah's example of leadership OVER the entire nation is "abberrant" or "disputable".

I have asked you guys why Deborah's example could be reduced to merely "advice/counsel" if she did the exact same thing as the examples of the male Judges I offered. What has been your response?

You see, merely making assertions in denial is not the same thing as acknowledging what is in the Word. I'm least interested in such games you guys play; and I'm hoping that you deal with issues and move this discussion forward.

Cheers.

Okay, my bros TV01, here is another example of what I've been trying to say:

REZIGIRL:

Thank God a lot of people in the house understand what tithing is. The bible commands it, so to me, my answer is a big YES. - - -

So why don't u give this 10% to God and as well enjoy the numerous blessings attached to Tithing?

That's just why I am persuaded that many people have their own persuasions on this matter: many seeing it as a "command" (and all akin ideas thereto); and even more to that, some limit it to just 10%. No wahala - we are all learning.

Et moi? Well, yes I tithe - I do so. But then, I don't see it as a command (or I should say, I've not come to the persuasion that it is a command even though I'm persuaded to tithe).

Second thing though, is that I also believe as does REZIGIRL that some blessings are attached to tithing - that's why I offered that short response earlier to link you to another one given earlier.

But here is a little example of what I was trying to share with you that it is not the first think that should always control our thoughts on tithing:

Esss:

Pay wetin??

That is just another means for the church to be taxing their congregation. Pay tithe so that the pastor can buy big cars and put customized license plates on them abi?- - -

Omo don't pay jack to no church. . . .

Biblically, TV01, you can see why I don't really think this is the way this discussion should be ajudged. Infact, if those were the reasons for giving or not, I would really NOT even give any other type of financial giving/offering.

I'm only just trying to offer you examples of why I didn't want to discuss this subject along the lines of the reasons above. I'm more concerned with what exactly we can learn from God's Word on any type of GIVING at all.


Yes, I believe in tithing - and I've been enjoying God's blessings thereto. But my persuasions are somewhat different from the idea that it is a command or that I should not give anything in church for fear of what any pastor does with my offering. God bless all.

Regards.

nossycheek:

Impossicant! Haba, when I am not a suicide bomber.

Oohhhh!! This is why Naija dey hungry me to visit! E don tey wey I hear that word - "impossicant"!! Haa, naija na de way!!

@TV01,

TV01:

I will respond to your reders as soon as I am able, for now, note that Women only rule in the absence of capable willing men. Anything else suggests a breakdown, as was the case during the time of the judges. When women rule, things are grave.

I'm glad for one thing, though: you've come round acknowledging that women indeed rule.

However, to suggest that they did so only in the absence of capable willing men is to obfuscate and rather ignore the fact that God's appointment of rulers is not based on man's willingness to assume any leadership roles in God's economy. This reminds me of Rom. 9:16 -- "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

Second, please go over the texts I offered again and allign your thoughts with what exactly those verses teach - it is God who raised, commanded and appointed such judges by His own authority.

Third, if you're suggesting that women appointed by God OVER His people is a sign of breakdown, you have completely missed the gist of the examples God shows in His wisdom in raising women to be leaders. The judges were not all women - and the circumstances in which the men judged were just about the same when Deborah judged the entire nation in her time. To make a case that Deborah being rasied up suggest a breakdown is to suggest that the men were raised up as a sign of breakdown as well.

TV01:

After reviewing your post prior, I accept that Deborah judged Israel with all the authority of the other Judges, noting 2 things;

1. Like I have consitently maintained, OT paradigms are not templates for NT living.
2. The abberational nature of those times as I outlined them.

I'm glad you've come round acknowledging what was difficult for me to accept initially until God had mercy on me.

However, I have noted (1) above severally; but that is not by any means enough grounds to negate the fact that in both the OT and NT, God gave us examples of women He called to be leaders among God's people. The case I'm trying to make here is simply this:

    Leadership is neither exclusively for men nor exclusively for women.

Both are called in various capacities of leadership among God's people - and we shall see this as we move on in our discussions.


Now I have also examined carefully the case of Isaiah 3 well before now, especially verse 12:

TV01:

12 As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths."

Please note carefully what is going on here. The whole body of that argument does not suggest that God was refuting the fact that women were called to rule over His people - for He indeed commanded them to do so (2 Samuel 7:11)!! Deborah did not pressume to judge Israel because she felt qualified - but according to the verse just cited, she was part of those whom God Himself raised and commanded to rule and be over God's people.

Secondly, in Isaiah 3:12 that it was not the women in leadership that were being blamed to have led the people into error!! There are two reasons why I say this:

  (a) when Isaiah prophesied, no woman was taking such a leadership role among God's people; but the prophet used it sarcastically to show how much the people had reduced themselves to an all-time low ("Woe to their soul! For they have brought evil upon themselves" - vs. 9). It was the same sarcastic devise employed by another prophet  in Nahum 3:13 - "thy people in the midst of thee are women" - which does not suggest that the people there were only females, but rather weak-souled people!

Bros, it is just the same as what my boss called me this morning: "woman-wrapper"!! Of course, my boss did not mean to see me as a female with lipstick - he rather referred to me as a weak-souled man who would not venture into ******!! (okay, don't ask!  ).

  (b) actually, it was rather the men in leadership positions who were leading the people into error in Isaiah 3:14 & 15! This is clear in Jeremiah 5:31 - "The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?"

You see, bros. . . if anyone is using Isaiah 3 to justify a male-only world, my simple question is this: on the whole, who have been more responsible for leading God's people into despicable error - the men or the women?

I think we really need to carefully consider what Isaiah was saying and not just run off with the mention of "women" in that chapter.

Cheers.

@TV01,

To the above questions, I offered you a few texts to consider earlier on (https://nairaland.macsoftware.info/nigeria/topic-272.928.html#msg1256815)

I believe if you carefully examine your concerns from Scripture, the case would be settled.

@otuwe,

So, what exactly is the intuition as different from the intellect?

Exactly my sentiments. And another thing: isn't God gracious to have revealed the situation to the pastor who made the discovery? That incident strengthened my faith in Him.

Hey Grail messengers, would someone help to explicate the issue of why people should not use a part of their brain?

Thanks.

Oya belloti, take note --

babyosisi:

In Africa alone 6 million Muslims convert annually to Christianity.

Please understand - a concerned Sheik who carefully investigated the conversion rate appealed to the mullahs to wake up from their propaganda!

@WesleyanA,

While you might be waiting for stats, I'm a bit concerned that it was not Christians who attempted a recent terrorist attack in Glasgow recently. Please try and check out the reports - and maybe you'd see why it's hard to defend your summations.

@sage,

Glad to see your reder; but let me make a few things clear to you once again:

sage:

Your argument with Deborah and Miriam do not hold water at all. Neither does you your arguments with the apostle quoting Joel and the other New testament scriptures that you quoted also. You are trying to make it look like they played the same role with the Men who had authority and that somehow that now means that women can become Shephards in the Church. That idea does not come from the bible.

What really does not come from the Bible is to try and twist the Scriptures to say what it does not say - which is what I find amazing in yours and TV01's. The reason is simply this: I've taken the time to explain in detail the meaning of the various roles each one fulfilled:

(a) Miriam was sent by the same God who sent Moses and Aaron - Micah 6:4

(b) Deborah judged the entire nation of Israel - Judg. 4:4-5

I'm asking a simple question here: if the men who judged the nation of Israel had authority to do so, why twist the Scriptures and make the case of Deborah simply "advice" when she did the exact same thing that the men did?

Those who judged Israel did so as rulers -- Ruth 1:1

Such judges/rulers were commanded by God to be over His people - 2 Sam. 7:11

Such judges were actually commanded by God to feed His people -- I Chron. 17:6

Mr sage, why twist the Word of God and make Deborah's case merely 'advice/counsel' when she did the exact same thing as the men who judged Israel? Is it simply because Deborah the prophetess was a WOMAN and nothing else?

And why would Miriam be otherwise than what we read in Scripture? Was Moses sent? Was Aaron sent? And did not that same verse say that Miriam was sent - Mic. 6:4??

Everyone each had a specific leadership role to fulfill; but bottomline here was that they were leaders OVER God's people!! You guys make me laugh with your men-only theory that is making it ever so hard to see the examples of these women. I can't even imagine how you want to see especially Deborah's role as simply one giving "advice"!!

sage:

(This was part of the reason why i mentioned the example of Korah. Korah had no intentions of delibrately displeasing God, nor did he dispute the fact that God gave out spiritual instructions through Moses. But presumteous thinking when it came to leadership in spiritual matters and trying to assume a position he thought Moses was Hoarding and he thought he and other qualified men were also entitled to but were beign denied by a class promoting Moses was his pitfall) (It was the same trap Athaliah and Miriam [whom you keep mentioning] feel into and one who another prophetess like Miriam, Deborah, advoided by showing Godly subjection to divinely constituted authority

Ol' boy, open your eyes and read well the issue here. Korah was not even a woman; and using that as an analogy to promote your men-only theory is weakening your premise. If Korah had been a woman, then you would have a point; but here you're mixing up issues as if Korah's rebellion was sufficient to argue againt Micah 6:4 or Deborah's leadership over the entire nation - or even yet that Korah's rebellion is the one thing that justifies your male ego barring women from leadership among God's people.

Please sage, present a stronger argument when you make a case against women leadership.

sage:

The reason why the Holy Spirit appointed only Men as Shephards in the first century was because of a devine precedent that preceeded the Law of Moses. It is a precedent that had been devinely instituted from Creation and Shows up time and again Before the law, Under the Old convenant and Under the New convenant as well.

Let me remind you of the case in creation: Eve was created as a helpmeet unto Adam; but please understand that when God created both Adam and Eve, He called them just one name: ADAM!!

"Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam,
in the day when they were created." -- Gen. 5:2

Now what happened when God set them over creation? Please notice that the dominion was not a man-only phenomenon:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth." -- Gen. 1:26

So, you can see that from the very beginning, leadership was a t exercise -- God said that both the man and woman (whom He gave the single name ADAM) were to exercise leadership over the rest of creation -- "let THEM have dominion"; and not 'let him have dominion'!!

Can I ask you what the "THEM" in Gen. 1:26 points to - (a) only MEN, or (b) to both men and women??

I have said it again and again -- make una open una eyes and look for the balance in God's Word; not make excuses to circumvent the clear fact that the Bible includes women in leadership responsibilities alongside men in divine calling!

Now, when you see a men-only world for shepeherds in the NT, you fail to see the message of Ephesians 4!! Until you drop your male ego, bros. . . this is going to continue to elude you.

sage:

I'm working on a project now but il Come back and handle this issue in detail most likely this weekend

Okay. Take all the time - we all get busy between times. Blessings.

@TV01,

Okay, now I have taken the time to carefully consider your persuasion on your previous submission; and here are my answers:

TV01:

In Exodus 3-4 (apologies for the earlier erroneous ref to Genesis), Moses was called and Aaron sent with him. Pray tell, was Miriam to be “like God” as Moses was? Was even Aaron equal in calling with Moses? The fact that Miriam played a prominent role did not mean she was commissioned with them.

One question: according to Micah 6:4, were Moses, Aaron and Miriam sent by God or not? The verse records God Himself stating that He did:

'For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of
the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. "

TV01:

I gave a new testament example of her wife and her husband. What has Deborah got to do with this? OT indicators are not binding on NT believers. And Deborah was not the leader of Israel. The judges were sent/appointed by God as deliverers. After the death of Joshua and the generations who witnessed his leadership, society had broken down and every man did what was right in his own sight.

I've noted severally that NT worship is not a continuum of OT worship style. However, since most people assert the women were never called to be leaders right from the OT, I have constantly offered Deborah's example.

Judg. 4:4-5 -- A few things you would have to notice here:

(a) Deborah did not appoint herself

(b) she judged Israel (rather an idea of merely giving godly counsel)

(c) the whole nation came to her for judgement (a matter of national concerns)

To try and reduce this into something else is to close the Bible and argue merely from assumptions.

TV01:

Here is Deborah’s introduction.

5 And she would sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. And the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

They came to her, that does not denote authority over them. They approached her for sound counsel, as an obviously Godly person.

The introduction did not begin in verse 5, but rather from vs. 4 -- "And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time."


Authority of the Judges of Israel

If you argue that she had no authority over them, then you make it sound like she was doing what she felt was right in her own eyes. The Word says emphatically that she "judged Israel" - and if this is merely to "counsel" people, then it would mean that all the male judges were merely "offering counsel".

"Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them." (Judg. 2:16) So then, could it be that those judges who were raised by the LORD were merely offering counsel? And if they served also as deliverers, was it merely a matter of personal exercise without authority from the LORD who raised them up?

Wat about Othniel - was he merely a judge without authority? The Bible says pretty much the same thing about him as was said about Deborah: "And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel" (Jdg. 3:10). Was he merely giving "advice"??

What about Tola the son of Puah? He "judged Israel twenty and three years" (Jdg. 10:1-2). Was he also merely giving "advice"??

And what about the prophet Samuel -- "And Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpeh" (I Sam. 7:6)?? "Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life" (ch. 7:15) -- was he merely giving out "advice" all his life??

I don't see how Deborah's role could be reduced to merely someone giving "advice/counsel" if the male judges were recognized as having authority.

What is even more to the point is that those who were judges were actually acting in the capacity of RULERS, as can be inferred in Ruth 1:1 --

"Now it came to in the days when the judges ruled"

Again, in 2 Samuel 7:11 we read that it was God Himself who appointed the Judges OVER His people:

"And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel"

And the same thing is yet again emphasized or reiterated in I Chron. 17:6 --

"Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel,
whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?"

And what about the authority of the judges appointed over Israel? Were they acting on their own pressumptions, or rather according to God's providence? I believe 2 Chron. 19:6 gives us a glimpse of what exactly they might have done:

"And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man,
but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment."

I still don't understand why Deborah the prophetess who did the exact same thing would be regarded as any less than in that capacity - is it merely because she happens to be a WOMAN?? (please shinystar, could you please note this as well in answer to one of the questions you raised?).

TV01:

Given the backdrop of a breakdown in civil society and religious structures at that time, why are you trying to use it to underpin a whole doctrine for Church life?

I am not using it to underpin anything. The point is that many people who force the idea of a men-only world continue to miss the point and constantly fail to recognize the leadership roles of women among God's people - whether in the past, or even now in the Body of christ. I have tried now to detail some of the issues you have missed in [b]Deborah's case[/b], as well Miriam's being SENT together with Moses and Aaron!

TV01:

Listen, God is sovereign, would I answer back? He can gift, choose and use whomsoever he pleases. In this time of meltdown He did.

And He did so using both men and women, instead of only men. The testimony of the Church today is in huge crises; but we can still look into the Word and begin once again to appreciate what God has provided for each one of us.

TV01:

But why do you insist it is a template for NT Christians? Like I have repeatedly said if men repudiate their responsibility, should women just “siddon look”? Or is God bound/limited by irresponsible men?

God is bound/limited by nothing and no one. even if men do not repudiate their responsibility, He has offered to use women from the very beginning - but we have closed those chapters dealing specifically with such issues and remained with only a few that point to men as if they are the only ones spoken of in such roles.

TV01:

In the whole of the OT and likewise the NT, there are each two hotly contested, highly debatable instances of women in leadership (not necessarily overall). On the basis of this you claim, gender neutrality in of authority and leadership (in the church at least) is the scriptural imperative?

I repeat: I do not claim gender neutrality. balance - balance - balance - balance - balance. . . to the nth time!!

TV01:

Is a follow on from 1 Cor 11:3, it speaks to the complimentary nature of the male and female in creational and the family/home setting. Not gender equality or neutrality and not primarily a congregational pointer.

If you can show me that I Corinthians 11 is primarily concerned with HOME issues, you would have made a point. Otherwise, it's not even an argument you have raised there.

shinystar:

Should they lead to the extent that they are the pastors and shepherds without superior authority? Or, should they be allowed to take posts considered less sensitive and feminine?

Great. And I'd like to see what people refer to as less sensitive and feminine posts; as well what is superior authority.

Thanks.

@Kuns,

Lol, bros. You have posted this before in another thread - and it is found wanting. It does not even appear in the link you offered to corroborate your storyline. Is your melanin getting weak by the day?