Women are to be silent when the Church assembles!

[handy]

I think this is why God gifted the Body with pastors and teachers, those who can help us wade through the Scriptures, sometimes adding knowledge that we lay folk don't necessarily have.

That's the beauty of the Church... the poorest, most illiterate little girl can share the greatest message of all, the Gospel... and yet we can also benefit from those with increased knowledge and higher learning.

Most of us fall into the same category as the Bereans... presented with a message and then needing to study our Scriptures to see if the message holds true.

Carlos, I'll look forward to your further posts on this subject. I have to be honest, I don't see any particular discrepancy between 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14... not if one views that "keep silence" is better translated in our modern tongue "hold one's peace" as opposed to "don't say anything".

 

[Stormcrow]

We don't live under the law or in a culture that demands silence on the part of women anywhere.

It's absurd on its face to assume anything in the Bible was written to a 21st century American audience. Nothing was. That's not to say we can't learn from these things, but learning requires study and discernment, which is the exact opposite manner in which most people view the Bible: taking it all as written specifically to our time and situations.

 

[woodlandapple]

Carlos I want you to hypothesis for a second that Paul actually wrote for Women to not be disruptive. with that frame I am going to address your concerns, not as an attack, but to let you know where the other sides thinking comes from

Okay...I've got another minute and I want to take this minute to better address an objection raised by some in this thread..

The objections goes like this....

The objection may differ just a tad in some particulars but essentially it's that the silence mentioned in 1 Cor 14:34 is of limited duration and not something that needs to last for an entire meeting.

Mind you I am not addressing what that silence pertains to in this post (i.e. whether it applies only to verbal expressions of the spiritual gifts or talking in general) only the belief that it is a limited silence that can be broken if one is not disruptive and speaks in a way that does not violate decency and in order.

1 Cor 13:34 would, in line with this objection, read thus (all quotations are from the NASB unless otherwise noted)...thoughts in brackets are supposedly indicated by nuances in the Greek or by what other verses throughout the New Testament say...again this is if the objection raised is valid....


The first thing I would like to note here is that Paul makes a connection between not speaking and submission on the part of women in an assembly of the church. If they do not speak they subject themselves. Conversely if they speak they are rebellious (I realize it doesn't flat out say this but that IS the opposite of submission...that is to say rebellious and Paul clearly connects not speaking with submission so speaking must conversely go against what Paul said to do and be rightly considered rebellious).



If the silence Paul commands is a limited kind that is only applicable to not causing a disruption such that a woman can speak in turn then it would completely negate any connection between not speaking and submission.



For a woman could then speak out in the church as well as remain silent and be in submission under both.

If we deny any connection between not speaking and submission then why did Paul bring up submission at all? To deny the connection is to leave submission all on it's own and render it all but meaningless in the context of what Paul is saying.

I would argue that when Paul mentions submission it is as adherence to the law in regards to the specific gender roles. That is of the headship of the church, and the role of a wife in a family. Biblical submission is a factor in this but is not the whole story. I hope you would agree that there is far more to a woman's role than just submission.

If you take away the not speaking as a visible expression of submission then how exactly does she express submission according to Paul's teaching here about how women are to conduct themselves in church meetings?

I would say by respecting Gender roles, as the law states. By respecting the head of the church and their authority, by respecting her husband and his headship of the family. by being submissive to the directions of God.

Apart from not speaking there is no practical expression of submission given and you are left with a command to be in submission that has no practical expression in this context. A command without teeth so to speak.

If the silence commanded is solely for the purpose of not causing a disruption then why does Paul command only the women to be silent? Would not such a silence apply equally well to the men?

I think Paul is not addressing the issue of womens role in the church, but he is rather addressing a problem in the church. The Men where not held accountable to this issue in particular because they where not the cause of this problem.

Some say that it is because New Testament women in Corinth where more disruptive than the men or some similar thing but any such belief is an assumption since the text says nothing of the sort.

In other words the belief that women and in particular Corinthian women, were more disruptive than the men...is just an assumption. If this is not so which verse in the text as written says anything of the sort? There is no such thing in the text. At all.

It is an assumption without any evidence.

It is an assumption, your right. We are not told how disruptive the men are, I would imagine quite disruptive when we look at all the problems they are causing later in the Book!

However, if we acknowledge that Paul is writing a letter via the genre of Occasional Letter to address a specific problem (which is not an assumption but is based on the finding of the exegesis techniques of Form critique, Redaction critique and canonical critique, and is the opinion of every theologian I have spoken to, and read from who are experts in this area. And while you have every right to disagree, it is not a mere assumption.) then we can deduce that the level of disruption, or how it compares to other disruptions are irrelevant, as Paul is simply addressing the issue of how the Women in this church are disruptive.
The evidence for this can be generalised as the structure of the letter, Pauls intended audience and the object of the sentences - which in the relevant passage is clearly the women in the churches of Corinth.

If it is disgraceful to speak in church, only when a woman is interrupting others and causing a disruption, why does Paul instruct the women to ask their husbands at home about anything they might wish to know? Would it not have been possible to ask in such a way as to not cause a disruption in the assembly as well as at home?

Paul makes a clear distinction between asking in the church and asking at home. In the former context it is not okay while in the latter it is.

I think someone else raised the point earlier in this thread, what about the women who arnt married? are they therefore not allowed any understanding? maybe a little irrelevant but an interesting question.

Again, lets assume that Paul is talking about order in the church. If the women where in the habit of abusing the gender roles, and therefore the law, and if they where being disruptive and argumentative then it is a logical deduction that they where being argumentative of their husbands, who where also probably the leaders of the church. Therefore it can be seen that Paul is simply saying(in my words) that instead of bickering and arguing in church about matters you don't understand with your husband, do this at home.

In the setting of a church assembly women are not permitted to speak out. No permission is found in the text or even implied to allow a women to speak when it does not disrupt a meeting of the church.

I was going to add some quotes here, and all of them you can look back in this thread to find, but rather I want to address something I just noticed in the NASB, which I think is the version you use?

When 1corinthians 14 says 'men' or 'brethren' I want everyone to realise that this is supposed to be NON GENDER SPECIFIC.

Greek designates its nouns into gender groups much like French does. These gender groups have no actual reference to the sexual gender, but rather a category of Nouns.

the Greek word for brethren is simply the plural of brother (brothers) BUT it doesnt mean that all the brothers are male. you could have 1000 women in a room, with one token male and the greek will still refer to them all as brothers.



it is the same for the plural of man, which includes women.


With this in mind it might be useful to have in the back of your head the word 'people, or nation' where you see men, and 'brothers and sisters' where you see brethren. Although the best translation is still men and brothers.

those of you who know french will be like, oh I get it, those of us who only speak English will think its a dirty trick : P

Without even an implied permission to speak all we are left with as that women are not allowed to speak in an assembly of the church.

In the setting of a church assembly it is disgraceful for a women to speak out. Disgraceful is connected with speaking not with disruption. In other words the text does not say "it is disgraceful for a woman to disrupt" but rather "it is disgraceful for a woman to speak". It is not disgraceful for men to speak out in a church assembly. Indeed the whole of chapter 14 encourages the men to speak out to exercise spiritual gifts. The instructions limiting speech are only for the women.

without getting into the structure of grammar again, the subject and objects of vrs 34 and 35 are linked, basically saying you need to address the verb 'speak' (which is not the main verb) in reference to how you translate silence, which brings us back to square one.

please read my discourse on gender words above, it indicates that who Paul encourages to speak are none gender specific.

Paul does not single out disruptive women. Rather he addresses his instructions to women in a church setting. To believe that he is referring only to those who cause a disruption is an assumption since nothing in the text warrants such a conclusion.

it is a natural assumption based on the logic that this is an occasional letter which the text can warrant. I dunno, I think there needs to be the distinction made that while it is apparent that Paul is addressing a common law to a common religion (Christianity) and would no doubt express the same ideas to other churches, it is still in relation to a specific church at a specific time with a specific problem. Again, Paul is clearly addressing a problem, not women.

If the silence Paul commands is of limited duration within a meeting of the church then so too is the lack of permission to speak and the disgracefulness of speaking.

I mean if a woman can speak when not interrupting others than it stands to reason that permission to speak is implied at different points in time during a meeting and that it is not always disgraceful for a woman to speak out in church.

But no Greek nuance or otherwise gives us liberty to believe that all three, the silence, the permission (or lack of it actually), and the disgracefulness are of limited duration and only apply to when a woman is causing a disruption.

well, actually the Greek does, and is indicated by the tense of the word, which gives further credence to the idea that it is a specific problem, the tense indicates that there is no continuing process, ie there is no command that "women must keep being silent" which the Greek would have clearly indicated if it had of been so.

But for more relevance, there is no implication form a disruptive sense that the other two are limited as they are in relation to the 'silence' so in other words, women never have permission to be argumentative and disruptive and to do so will always dishonour them and cause disgrace.

The not permission for the women to speak, is linked grammatically to the main verb (compliments it) if we hold the meaning to mean "keep the peace" type of silence then the verb to not speak must compliment that sentiment.

To believe that is again assumption. A belief that is unsupported by what Paul says in the plain meaning of the words used or by any stretch of Greek definition of the underlying words used for silence, not allowing, and disgrace.

I hope Ive already addressed the issue with plain meaning.

allow me to also bandy the assumption word here, you are making assumptions on what Greek does and doesn't do, it would be best if you leave Greek to those who understand it, it doesn't behave the way you think it does, they all (those three words) actually imply a limited duration in Greek.

What applies to one of the three must by definition apply to all three.

and as all three are based on the main verb, they must all compliment the interpretation of that verb as they are not separate but add information to it.

Rather the plain meaning of what Paul says is that women must remain silent, that they do not have permission to speak, and that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in an assembly of the church.

only if you interpret the verb to mean absolute silence, and if you ignore the genre of the letter.

Barring any reason to do otherwise we must take what is said at face value and not draw conclusions based on unsupported assumptions.

Some here seem to make light of negating what Paul said based on this or that assumption but an assumption is an assumption and not a fact. An assumption that is not supported by anything in the text is simply conjecture and should not be taken into account when the aim is to correctly interpret what Paul said.

your assuming that the face value english is the same as the face value greek, and assuming that face value has no reference to context. and I think that if we simply take anything at face value we are blinded to any depth, you loose sight of a lot of what the bible has to offer. For example I am part of Gods flock, but Im not really a sheep, nor is Jesus a literal Sheppard, or infact a door nor is He actually a grapevine. But the plain reading of text would suggest he is, and you would loose sight of what is actual being said.

 

[Webb]

Hi Woodlandapple

May I ask, what are your credentials in the Koine Greek?

I agree that "silence" for the woman is not absolute silence in the assembly. The Bible is its own best interpreter and does show the extent to which a woman may use her voice in the assembly. I will leave that to others to find, its good to search the scriptures.

As to the question of women asking their husbands, the Greek I think clears that up as well.

 

[woodlandapple]

Hi Woodlandapple

May I ask, what are your credentials in the Koine Greek?

I agree that "silence" for the woman is not absolute silence in the assembly. The Bible is its own best interpreter and does show the extent to which a woman may use her voice in the assembly. I will leave that to others to find, its good to search the scriptures.

As to the question of women asking their husbands, the Greek I think clears that up as well.

Im doing Masters study in divinity. All the exegis subject for this study are in Greek, so as far as credentials. I'd say I am MILES away from being a bible translator as it isn't my major. This level of study gives me the knowledge to be able to critique bible translations and translators.
As well as translation for the purposes of exegis.

I think this passage without a doubt helps is to define what women's role in ministry is. And I think conversations like this is important as we all challenge ourselves.

 

[carlos123]

If that is the case it is because I have felt that what I have had to say has been instantly dismissed as wrong despite the fact that this the very thing that I do for a living.

I very much appreciate your further sharing of what is on your heart about this matter and more specifically why you have shared as you have.

Just so you know WoodlandApple, I have never outright dismissed what you haved shared as wrong just because you are a Greek scholar or anything of the sort.

As I will not do so in the future.

You tell us what the underlying Greek word translated as silence means in other verses besides 1 Cor 14 (which meaning I am not entirely certain I agree with you on at least as far as you see it to be) and you impose upon 1 Cor 14 that meaning.

And you seem to expect me to take your imposed meaning as the only meaning that it could be while seemingly ignoring the contextual words used by Paul in 1 Cor 14 itself.

I mean in the sense that you claim to believe the silence to be limited in scope as might be the case if Paul meant only to avoid ongoing disruption but where a women speaking would be perfectly fine if she was not disrupting.

While ignoring the need reconcile your understanding of a temporary silence with Paul's lack of permission to speak and the disgracefulness to speak.

Are all limited in scope? On what basis?

If they are not all limited in scope how can the silence possibly be?

I do not believe the Greek supports a limited scope for silence and Paul's lack of permission and the disgracefulness of speaking. If I am mistaken in that by all means correct me WoodlandApple.

So to me WoodlandApple this is not a matter of understanding Greek at all but rather of understanding and more importantly embracing what Paul said in the plain meaning of the words used.

I will not ignore what the plain meaning is and side with supposed Greek anything when that Greek whatever itself does not support a complete denial of what Paul said in all particulars.

How would you feel if someone who had read a little bit about what you do for a living comes along and tells you that your work is wrong? (I'm talking Greek, not the bible)

In my flesh I would shafe at such a thing and rise up to put down such a notion as coming from an inferior.

In my spirit I would welcome that as an opportunity to be more like Jesus, whose knowledge was and is 1,000,000 times more than any of ours, but who with humility taught people with patience until they saw the light.

He never took personal offense at anyone saying He knew less than them about anything.

And neither should we.

We are all babes standing at the foot of Christ learning.

It is with an attitude of being such babes that we should approach the Word and not as learned scholars who cannot learn anything from even the most simple minded among us (not saying you have a wrong attitude only making a general point).

I don't really think that anyone is going to change there opinion on this matter, my goal is to demonstrate the matter is not as simple as it is claimed and that there are very valid reasons to suggest that women do have a voice in church.

I applaud your goal WoodlandApple if I do not entirely agree that no one among us will ever change their mind on this matter.

So much discussion of this and many other topics among Christians is problematic because they do not stick to what is written. They veer off into all kinds of personal opinions and otherwise.

In all honesty and before God WoodlandApple do you not realize that within your interpretation there is a great deal of assumption that you base your belief on?

If not a great deal then would you at least admit to some assumption? Even one assumption somewhere?

I mean if not...what in the world does assumption mean to you?

Should assumptions form the base for our interpretation of Scripture? I can't believe that you would say yes to such a thing.

If you can bring yourself to drop your assumptions I think you and I can get somewhere in our discussion of this subject otherwise there is no hope for me and you at least to ever arrive at united thinking on this.

How can there be?

I mean how can I be expected to agree with your interpretation when the base which forms a fair amount of your interpretation are assumptions?

About what this word must mean, about what Paul must have meant to say, and so forth.

Carlos

 

[JMJ]

Colossians 3:16 NKJV
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

I am assuming that Paul's letter to the Colossians was not for men only.

Acts 18:24-226 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

Women may teach, but men are still the leaders/overseers of the Church's members. Women cannot be bishops/overseers in the Church. If Jesus had wanted women to be bishops, He would have personally appointed at least one to be His apostle/bishop in His Church.

The problem in Corinth:
Church services were held in people's houses, not in specially designated buildings as we have today. The Corinth women were talking during the home church service and this talking was disrupting the service and so they incurred this rebuke from Paul.

 

[carlos123]

I agree that "silence" for the woman is not absolute silence in the assembly.

For the record and to make things as clear as I can in this regard...I have never and do not now maintain that the silence commanded by Paul is absolute as in that women cannot ever, under any circumstances and in any way, say one solitary word during an assembly of the church and for the entirety of that assembly.

Of the top, and this requires some further prayer and consideration so I am not saying this definitively and just as my personal opinion at this point, at the very least I believe the silence is related to speaking out like those who are tongues speakers, interpreters, prophets, and so forth are encouraged to speak out.

At the most it is related to speaking out in such a way that one's speaking becomes noticeable publicly to the church as a whole.

I just wanted to clarify that if there was any confusion about what I may have said or believed about this.

Carlos

 

[Webb]

I understand Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 to be the only exception found in the scripture for the woman in the assembly. If there is another or more than another I'm sure I will be corrected.

 

[woodlandapple]

In all honesty and before God WoodlandApple do you not realize that within your interpretation there is a great deal of assumption that you base your belief on?

If not a great deal then would you at least admit to some assumption? Even one assumption somewhere?

I mean if not...what in the world does assumption mean to you?

Should assumptions form the base for our interpretation of Scripture? I can't believe that you would say yes to such a thing.

If you can bring yourself to drop your assumptions I think you and I can get somewhere in our discussion of this subject otherwise there is no hope for me and you at least to ever arrive at united thinking on this.

How can there be?

I mean how can I be expected to agree with your interpretation when the base which forms a fair amount of your interpretation are assumptions?

About what this word must mean, about what Paul must have meant to say, and so forth.

Carlos

on assumptions, I think there are educated assumptions or there are unbased assumptions, I dont like the word assumption because it imlies unbased. I have an opinion and I guess assumption, but it is not unbased and that is what I am trying to show.Would you see your position as a matter of opinion and assumption too Carlos?

for example the word silence can have a range of meanings, all of which are correct technically, noone is making any definition up, you have your assumption on what it means and so do I, both of us think ours is a better representation of what Paul is trying to say.

you keep emphasising that you are taking the vere at face value, and I think that is too simplistic a view, the wording itself does not hae a face value in english, there are no words to describe the word being used. so any interpretation, including those made by bible translators are by definition an assumption.

we make assumptions on submission, I mean the literal wording of the text implies only that women are to submit to the law, it doesnt indicate what law is being referenced and it certainly doesnt suggest that women need to submit in church, as church is not the law, so what assumptions drive your interpretation of the law? and what are the consequences to this interpretation, do you mix authority with superiority? Can a woman stillbe in submission to her husband, and in Gods eyes if she has a leadership role in church? the answer is based on assumptions made on what exactly the gender roles are.

An assumption I beleive you make is that when Paul referes to men and to bretheren (or brothers) that he is refering to males only, this is an assumtion, when a plain reading of the text only indicates that the audience is not all female and any female in the early church would have assumed this meant them too, my assumption is that the non specific bretheren of a church has females in it, otherwise why would Paul be addressing whether they can speak or not? how does this change your assumptions? does it change at all? do you disagree with this? if so, what assumtions lead you to this?

I had a really Good conversation with a lecturer this morning who did his doctorate thesis on this very passage, and his advice was to tread lightly on this passage, and that the whole letter of Corinthians is highly contextual and that a plain reading either way wouldnt do this passage justice.

So Carlos, I extend the same question to you, do you understand the assumptions you are making, educated or unbased, on this passage?

 

[handy]

I understand Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 to be the only exception found in the scripture for the woman in the assembly. If there is another or more than another I'm sure I will be corrected.

Well, there is the matter that women are gifted with prophesy and that prophesy is for the edification of the church... the instruction being that the woman should wear a symbol of authority as she is praying or prophesying.

Chapter 11... which seems to be being ignored, which is quite strange to me, as it falls within the same context as how to conduct oneself during communion, that we are to respect all the gifts and gifted within the body, how to exercise the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation of tongues and above all that our love must be greater than our pride in our gifts.

 

[handy]

I would like for those who hold the view that "silence" doesn't mean lifting up voices in song and hymns to explain why it doesn't.

It seems arbitrary to be that you are going to hold that silence means don't speak out with a prophesy or a tongue or an interpretation... but it doesn't cover singing etc.

Very arbitrary, especially since women are gifted with prophesy, tongues and interpretation.

 

[woodlandapple]

A general critique, (sorry list of assumptions) of the passage 1 Corinthians 14:29 - 40 All references ASV

1.
Vrs 31
Why would Paul command 'all' to prophesy, one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted, and then directly contradict it the very next verse? Clearly a plain view of this text is not enough to validate both ansers.

Vrs 34
it is not permitted[speaking]..... but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.
Who didnt permit it?
The OT says absolutly nothing from Genesis to Malachi to forbid women to speak. No law can be found forbidding women to speak in public, besides we do know that the OT permitted women to speak in public (Num. 27:1-7) and that Jesus did also, with rebuke (Luke 8:47, 11:27, 13:13).
using the phrase It is not permitted implies that others besides paul has forbidden such a thing too, who are they? where are they?

What is known about the situation which occasioned the writing of this epistle to the Corinthians?

We gather that the corinthian christians had written Paul a letter (7:1) and he is answering it. There where divisions among them (1:11). He had enemies in Corinth that disputed his right to be called an Apostle (9:1) and criticised him for leading about a woman with them (9:5) WHo was this woman? assumption is Priscilla who with her husband Aquila left Corinth in the companyof Paul shortly before (Acts 18:18).

Priscilla was well known to all the churches of the gentiles (Rom:16:4),how could this be if she was silenced? Priscilla was known as a teacher of Apollos (Acts 18:26) and it can be deducted that Priscilla and her husband where legitimate evangelists and teachers.

ASSUMPTIONS ON HUSBANDS (based on text books on early church history)

Some of the Corinthian Women would be widows, someperhaps divorced on account of thier christian faith, some with Jewish husbands, some with Heathen husbands some not married at all.

If Paul is driving women to only seek answers through their husbands then Paul is driving some back to heathenism for spiritual help, others back to Judaism, many others he deprives all opportunity to get questions answered, in fact the majority of the CHristian women would have been left in ignorance by such a ruling.

ACCOUNTS OF WOMEN LEADERS IN THE FAITH EXPRESSED THROUGH LAW
read the account of Miriam (Ex. 15:20) of Deborah (jdg. 4&5) of the immense assembly of important people addressed by the daughters of Zelophehad, which was approved of by God (Num. 27:1-7) the reference to Huldah the prophetess (2 Kings 22) the reference to women who prophesised through song (1chr.25) and through the women who prophesised in ezek. 13.17.

In the NT see Anna (Luke 8:36-38, of the women Christ caused to speak in public (Luke 8:47;13:13), Peters reference to women prophesying (Acts 2:16-18) and the reference to Philips daughter (Acts 21:9)

If a literal and plain translation of 1Cor14:29-40 is appropriate then why not one of Hab. 2:20 which tells ALL THE EARTH keep silence before Him?

 

[handy]

Thank you, Woodlandapple! I've maintained all along that the context of the text does not support that women are to be silent. Your post further clarifies that.

To say that Paul meant for all women to be silent, especially silent if they have a prophesy :o is to take his words wildly out of context, not to mention ignore the whole of what Scripture teaches us about women's role within the church.

 

[Webb]

To Handy and all: All you need do is show from scripture where women who were prophets did so in the assembly. It can't be done! One major problem with denominalists is their refusal to stay with just what is read in the scripture, no wonder confusions abound and abound and abound. The subject of the head covering, while it does touch on the matter of this thread is really for another thread.

 

[reba]

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

 

[Webb]

True, but what does that verse have to do with women preaching ,etc., in the church? As ministers of the NT we are to rightly divide the word of truth, said Paul to Timothy. Now, where, in rightly dividing the word of truth do you find women speaking in the church? Where? Find it and the matter is closed.

 

[reba]

Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

To the letter of the Word....

A man holding position in the church can not be a widower.... Can not have rebellious child...


Holding to the letter of the Word is fine if ya HOLD.

I do not believe women should be pastors Handy has spoken my thoughts on that very well...

 

[Webb]

Reba--you quote from Tit.1:6 and underscore the part saying the elder is to be the husband of one wife, and that is true, and the elders where I worship are and have been the husbands of one wife. BUT, what has this got to do with women speaking in the church? Nothing as far as I can discern.

 

[Webb]

P.S. A man who is a widower and has had but one wife is the husband of but one wife, is he not?

A man who has children who rebell cannot be an elder in the first place and should they become such he needs resign. The children of the elders in our congregation do not disgrace their fathers. Yes, we can strive to follow God's word. Thats what we have it for in the 1st place, isn't it? Isn't it?? No wonder we have so much division, so many want to do things their way. Paul told the Philipians it is to God's good pleasure! Did he say "our's"? NO, God's good pleasure.