 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Bonnie, |
maqqebet |
I posted the passage from Ruth in jest.
I don't know where the "male covering" came from unless it stems from the subject of submission. You do remember that discussion, don't you?
It is a patriarchal expression for sure.
My mother-in-law pastored in the COG but she couldn't preside of a men's council. She wasn't suppose to baptize or administer the Lord's Supper.
Why? Tradition! Tradition! Tradition! Tradition! (sung to the tune of Fiddler on the Roof's opening song)
_________________
The Hammer
Mi kamocah ba'elim Adonai
"Who is like you, Adonai, among the mighty?" (Exodus 15:11, CJB) |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1771
6/12/16 3:06 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | When God created the earth & Adam & Eve, He brought order from chaos.
With order and structure comes some kind of hierarchy. Someone has to be in charge. Adam & Eve were both given dominion over everything but their roles/functions were different. |
Not all order requires hierarchy, but in any case, there is nothing in the creation story that says Adam was given hierarchy over Eve. Also they were given the same mandate:
Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
There is nothing there about different roles or functions.
|
Yes, that is what God said before the fall.
After the fall, check out Genesis 3:16:
Unto the woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
6/12/16 5:12 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
maqqebet, I couldn't read your tone in your first post, but I'm laughing now. (Twice as much!)
I remember one evangelist taught us a chorus about that. It went something like,
"Because thou art my nearest kinsman, spread the border of thy mantle over me."
In looking just now on the internet, I think the title is "Cover Me, Cover Me."
Last edited by bonnie knox on 6/12/16 9:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/12/16 5:24 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | Yes, that is what God said before the fall.
After the fall, check out Genesis 3:16:
Unto the woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. |
Even if this were the way God WANTED it to be, it would not apply to single women, would it? If this is what we base the need for a woman to have a male ministry cover, women who have never married or who were deserted by their husbands or who were widowed would still not have to have the "covering."
But the other thing, which to me is more important in this passage, is that this is not the original intent of the Creator. It is quite apparent that it is the result of the Fall. It is not prescriptive. In other words, it only tells how it will be not how it SHOULD be. If God had meant it to be prescriptive, he would have said it to Adam and not Eve. He is basically telling Eve that a result of sin is that her husband would dominate her (and I suppose, in general, husbands would dominate their wives and men would dominate women).
Inasmuch as Christ's redemption brought about a restoration of broken relationships, we should expect to move beyond the broken paradigm of one human dominating another within Christian relationships. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/12/16 5:42 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | Yes, that is what God said before the fall.
After the fall, check out Genesis 3:16:
Unto the woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. |
Even if this were the way God WANTED it to be, it would not apply to single women, would it? If this is what we base the need for a woman to have a male ministry cover, women who have never married or who were deserted by their husbands or who were widowed would still not have to have the "covering."
But the other thing, which to me is more important in this passage, is that this is not the original intent of the Creator. It is quite apparent that it is the result of the Fall. It is not prescriptive. In other words, it only tells how it will be not how it SHOULD be. If God had meant it to be prescriptive, he would have said it to Adam and not Eve. He is basically telling Eve that a result of sin is that her husband would dominate her (and I suppose, in general, husbands would dominate their wives and men would dominate women).
Inasmuch as Christ's redemption brought about a restoration of broken relationships, we should expect to move beyond the broken paradigm of one human dominating another within Christian relationships. |
The point of this post was not say this was as it SHOULD be, but to point out after the fall, there was a hierarchy. Maqqebet said there was not.
Why would it need to be a male covering for that matter...why couldn't a woman be mentored by another female minister?
You don't seem to be listening to the positive points I have made re: this, so I won't belabor it.
Yes, we should move beyond the brokenness of domination, but sadly, we do not live in a perfect world.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
6/12/16 9:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | You don't seem to be listening to the positive points I have made re: this, so I won't belabor it. |
Carolyn, I have read every point you have made. I haven't necessarily responded to every point because I'm specifically asking if there is a scriptural backing for the claim that "women are to serve in ministry under a male covering."
I often hear things like that repeated, and I think it's time we take a serious look at what scripture says. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/12/16 10:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
And I think you might have confused maqqebet's comment with mine. I'm the one who said that Adam was not given hierarchy over Eve in the CREATION STORY. In other words, God did not set a hierarchy in order when he created humankind.
AFTER the creation story, after humankind fell, then God predicted that a result of sin would be that Adam would dominate Eve. But because this is descriptive and not prescriptive, it has no bearing on whether women must minister under a male covering.
Jesus didn't think highly of human hierarchies:
Matthew 23:
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Luke 22:
24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/12/16 10:17 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
| bonnie knox wrote: | And I think you might have confused maqqebet's comment with mine. I'm the one who said that Adam was not given hierarchy over Eve in the CREATION STORY. In other words, God did not set a hierarchy in order when he created humankind.
AFTER the creation story, after humankind fell, then God predicted that a result of sin would be that Adam would dominate Eve. But because this is descriptive and not prescriptive, it has no bearing on whether women must minister under a male covering.
|
I did confuse your comments. My apologies.
I disagree with your conclusion about what happened after the fall. God did not predict what what happen. God spoke a curse on both man and woman (and the serpent) because of sin. For the woman, along with the curse of pain in childbearing (not a prediction, but a reality) came the curse of man's domination over her. Not necessarily the best thing, but it IS part of the curse. Adam & Eve had that perfect world thing going, and they messed it up!
I am not necessarily saying a woman must have a male covering over her. But I think it is important that every minister answers to someone - that there is some earthly authority they submit themselves to. It fosters responsibility and accountability and provides protection to the minister, male or female.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
6/12/16 10:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | I disagree with your conclusion about what happened after the fall. God did not predict what what happen. God spoke a curse on both man and woman (and the serpent) because of sin. For the woman, along with the curse of pain in childbearing (not a prediction, but a reality) came the curse of man's domination over her. Not necessarily the best thing, but it IS part of the curse. Adam & Eve had that perfect world thing going, and they messed it up! |
God uses the word "curse" with the serpent and the ground, but not on the humans.
The distinction is important because we do not mind at all figuring out ways to lessen the pain of childbirth or finding out ways to make manual labor easier or finding ways to air condition man's surroundings so he doesn't have to earn his living by the sweat of his brow.
Do you hear anyone suggesting that it's not Biblical for the ordained bishops in the COG to conduct their business sessions in air conditioned buildings? Can you see it if the women were arguing that the men shouldn't have air conditioning because God had "cursed" Adam to work by the sweat of his brow?
As silly and extreme as that sounds, that is what it amounts to when we take the verses in Genesis 3 and claim that men must maintain authority over women. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/12/16 10:43 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | I guess folks are scared that if you don't have a covering, you might have a problem at the next level or even the Jezebel spirit, and you might not be able to plead the blood right. |
But they couldn't come right out and admit that fear because that would be a negative confession.  |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/12/16 11:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | I disagree with your conclusion about what happened after the fall. God did not predict what what happen. God spoke a curse on both man and woman (and the serpent) because of sin. For the woman, along with the curse of pain in childbearing (not a prediction, but a reality) came the curse of man's domination over her. Not necessarily the best thing, but it IS part of the curse. Adam & Eve had that perfect world thing going, and they messed it up! |
God uses the word "curse" with the serpent and the ground, but not on the humans.
The distinction is important because we do not mind at all figuring out ways to lessen the pain of childbirth or finding out ways to make manual labor easier or finding ways to air condition man's surroundings so he doesn't have to earn his living by the sweat of his brow.
Do you hear anyone suggesting that it's not Biblical for the ordained bishops in the COG to conduct their business sessions in air conditioned buildings? Can you see it if the women were arguing that the men shouldn't have air conditioning because God had "cursed" Adam to work by the sweat of his brow?
As silly and extreme as that sounds, that is what it amounts to when we take the verses in Genesis 3 and claim that men must maintain authority over women. |
God declared it then. He did not use the word curse, but He declared it and what ever God spoke happened. It happened. Even to this day with the wonders of modern medicine, there is still pain in childbirth. But the second part doesn't count because it's not a curse? That doesn't make sense.
Ya know, I kind of agreed with you back there about the male covering thing.
I am done arguing. That's my opinion, for what it's worth.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
6/12/16 11:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Covering |
Link |
| Change Agent wrote: | | I've never heard stated that a man needs a covering for his ministry, but it always seems to be applied to women in ministry. Just another example of keeping women under subjection of men. We will see another example of it at the GA in Nashville. Stay tuned. |
In some churches, they think everyone needs a 'covering.'
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
6/12/16 11:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Bonnie, |
Link |
| maqqebet wrote: | I posted the passage from Ruth in jest.
I don't know where the "male covering" came from unless it stems from the subject of submission. You do remember that discussion, don't you?
It is a patriarchal expression for sure.
My mother-in-law pastored in the COG but she couldn't preside of a men's council. She wasn't suppose to baptize or administer the Lord's Supper.
Why? Tradition! Tradition! Tradition! Tradition! (sung to the tune of Fiddler on the Roof's opening song) |
Part of it was probably based on this rather than 'covering' teaching:
I Timothy 2:!2
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
6/12/16 11:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | God declared it then. He did not use the word curse, but He declared it and what ever God spoke happened. It happened. Even to this day with the wonders of modern medicine, there is still pain in childbirth. But the second part doesn't count because it's not a curse? That doesn't make sense. |
I think it might have been the Puritans who thought it was wrong to seek relief through painkillers for childbirth. Their reasoning being was that God said it would be painful, so it ought to be painful. I don't know of many people nowadays who are saying we shouldn't seek relief from the pain. Why would it be morally acceptable to seek relief from something God said would be painful and it not be morally acceptable to seek relief from the emotional pain of one human dominating another?
Why would we "sanctify" a man dominating a woman even though Christ came to restore relationships? That's what doesn't make sense. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/13/16 6:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bradfreeman |
| Carolyn Smith wrote: | 1 Corinthians 11: 1-16
1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.
3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,
15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Now...what does that mean? |
It seems like the issue is not: "Do you have a head?"
The issue is: "Is your head covered (veiled) or uncovered (unvelied)?"
For man whose head is Christ - he should "uncover" (unveil) his Head.
For woman whose head is man - she should "cover" (veil) her head.
Looks to me like this means - men should reveal Christ and women should veil their men and reveal Christ.
Looks like women can cut-out-the-middle-man (cover or veil their head) and go directly to Christ.
Christ reveals or unveils God.
Man reveals or unveils Christ.
Woman (veils man) and reveals or unveils Christ.
The hair is just a cultural analogy.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
6/13/16 8:13 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Christopher Stephenson |
[quote="bonnie knox"][quote]...Do you hear anyone suggesting that it's not Biblical for the ordained bishops in the COG to conduct their business sessions in air conditioned buildings? Can you see it if the women were arguing that the men shouldn't have air conditioning because God had "cursed" Adam to work by the sweat of his brow?[/quote]
 |
Friendly Face
Posts: 144
6/13/16 8:24 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Carolyn, I have noticed that on the nash16 website, a Margaret Mowczko is commenting. I have encountered her teachings in other places on the web.
She has stood out to me amongst some of the other adherents of egalitarianism because she is, like we are, Pentecostal.
I think you will enjoy her website. Here is one particular article, but if you have time to look around at some of her other articles, I think you will find a lot of interesting teaching.
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/separate-spheres-roles-in-trinity-and-marriage-john-5_18-30/ |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/13/16 10:31 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | God declared it then. He did not use the word curse, but He declared it and what ever God spoke happened. It happened. Even to this day with the wonders of modern medicine, there is still pain in childbirth. But the second part doesn't count because it's not a curse? That doesn't make sense. |
I think it might have been the Puritans who thought it was wrong to seek relief through painkillers for childbirth. Their reasoning being was that God said it would be painful, so it ought to be painful. I don't know of many people nowadays who are saying we shouldn't seek relief from the pain. Why would it be morally acceptable to seek relief from something God said would be painful and it not be morally acceptable to seek relief from the emotional pain of one human dominating another?
Why would we "sanctify" a man dominating a woman even though Christ came to restore relationships? That's what doesn't make sense. |
Well, pain killers might relieve that kind of emtional pain as well... Not recommending that.
The New Testament tells wives to submit to their husbands. If that is because of the curse, the New Testament says to do it. If it is not because of the curse, the New Testament says to do it. Paul points to 'two shall be one flesh' when talking about the mystery of Christ and marriage in Ephesians 5, rather than the curse passage.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
6/13/16 11:07 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Carolyn, I have noticed that on the nash16 website, a Margaret Mowczko is commenting. I have encountered her teachings in other places on the web.
She has stood out to me amongst some of the other adherents of egalitarianism because she is, like we are, Pentecostal.
I think you will enjoy her website. Here is one particular article, but if you have time to look around at some of her other articles, I think you will find a lot of interesting teaching.
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/separate-spheres-roles-in-trinity-and-marriage-john-5_18-30/ |
It seems like her trinitary argument is based primarily on 'theology' and not scripture.
Do Pentecostals really treat church councils like scripture? The COG was started, before it was so named, by a group of people who only wanted to use the Bible, not creeds, etc. as their rule for faith and practice. The PH (IPHC) denomination has a fairly recent book out stating that they accept the church councils, including Chalcedon, but what Pentecostal really accepts church decisions about what to do with monestaries. Do Pentecostals accept monasticism? What about the issue of whether the bishop of Constantinople was equal to the bishop of Rome? Where do Pentecostals come down on that one?
In I Corinthians 15, we see that the Son reigns until God puts everything under His feet-- but not God Himself. Then He will deliver up the kingdom to God.
_________________
Link
Last edited by Link on 6/13/16 11:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
6/13/16 11:11 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Link, submission is for every believer.
What I was specifically addressing is Genesis 3:16 which Carolyn brought up. I think you and I are in agreement that Genesis 3:16 cannot be used as a scriptural basis to say that a "woman must minister under a male covering." |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/13/16 11:15 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
