Ordain a Lady

[BlessedPeace]

Without councils, there would be no Bible. Your position is illogical and self-defeating. You are cutting off the very limb you are sitting on.

View attachment 46493

You should research the councils history as related to Scripture and all scrolls,etc... that were considered and discarded so to maintain a preset narrative. You should research the politics of the time that influenced the process. Research the fact scribes changed words because they were not versed in the original language they encountered.

There is a passage that tells us God is found in all of creation so that we are without excuse if we insist there to be no evidence of God.

Men play God when they think to manufacture a time that for some becomes an idol for others. Thinking God can only speak and be found between its covers.
When God tells us he is not found in structures built by human hands,we should realize that includes books.

We are indwelt by Holy Spirit God. He helps us navigate His word. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Imparting unto God a divisive prejudice in His church is that sin of man. Not God.

It is contrary to scripture to think we are all one in Christ,as the true church in him,and then inject division by gender when it comes to teaching this. God made man and woman in His image and likeness.
Man segregates by gender. When we are all made in God's image and likeness.

But you have no biblical evidence to support your radical feminist approach. A deaconess is not a pastor. And pastor is the same as elder.

The term "pastor" is also interwoven with the biblical term "overseer," or "elder" - in the Greek, episkopos, or "bishop." We see this in St. Paul's farewell discourse to the elders of Ephesus:​

"Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." (Acts 20:28)​

There is the connection: the "episkopoi" of the church at Ephesus have guardianship over "the flock" of God's people.​

Further, to be a "pastor" (shepherd, overseer, elder) is also to be an "ambassador" for Christ (c.f. 2 Cor. 5:18ff). There are no women episkopos "overseer," or "elder" anywhere in the N.T.

Radical Feminist approach.

Thank you for no longer allowing me to waste my time.

Much love!

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

An important point to establish. There is no doubt about what the author said. There is no “But what if the author lived in the 21st century?” game to be played.

For some of us, there is such a game
I understand that not for you, my friend.

Personally, I can't rule out the game "What if the author lived in the 21st century?" because that game was played over and over across the 1500 years that took the inspired collection we know as "Bible" to be completed.
The advice, commandment, rule, given at one given time, is different from the advice, commandment or rule given centuries later.

I invite you to consider that the game "What if the author lived in the 21st century?" is not necessarily an excuse used by the devil to introduce apostasy or debauchery among believers. It is a prudent question to ask, particularly when it refers to social matters.
The answer to that question may be "Paul would hold the same opinion"... and that will be reassuring... but such answer should come after a reflection on current realities and God's will behind every rule, advice or commandment.

 

[Matthias]

For some of us, there is such a game

Yes. It’s a dangerous game. Peter said “x” in the 1st century but in the 21st century Peter might say something different, “y”. It‘s a speculation game. Many Christians play it; non-Christians too.

I understand that not for you, my friend.

Acknowledging your comment and confirming that your understanding about me is correct, my friend. (It’s a too bad that we live so far away from one another. I’m confident from what I’ve learned about you that you would be a wonderful next door neighbor.)

Personally, I can't rule out the game "What if the author lived in the 21st century?" because that game was played over and over across the 1500 years that took the inspired collection we know as "Bible" to be completed.
The advice, commandment, rule, given at one given time, is different from the advice, commandment or rule given centuries later.

Jesus of Nazareth* is the final arbiter for me.

I invite you to consider that the game "What if the author lived in the 21st century?" is not necessarily an excuse used by the devil to introduce apostasy or debauchery among believers. It is a prudent question to ask, particularly when it refers to social matters.

I’ll give you an example from one of my personal experiences in Africa. When I was working in Malawi I stayed in Blantyre but conducted my work in the villages. In Blantyre the women dressed one way; in the villages they dressed another. In Blantyre the women were fully clothed; in the villages some of them were fully clothed and some of them were only partially clothed. This was accepted as normal in the culture. What would Paul have said about it? (I’ll provide one more piece of information about the matter after you’ve had time to think it over.)

The answer to that question may be "Paul would hold the same opinion"... and that will be reassuring... but such answer should come after a reflection on current realities and God's will behind every rule, advice or commandment.

I look for Paul to be consistent. (We’re back now to the subject of situational ethics.)

P.S.

* And the Apostles.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

You should research the councils history as related to Scripture and all scrolls,etc... that were considered and discarded so to maintain a preset narrative. You should research the politics of the time that influenced the process. Research the fact scribes changed words because they were not versed in the original language they encountered.

There is a passage that tells us God is found in all of creation so that we are without excuse if we insist there to be no evidence of God.

Men play God when they think to manufacture a time that for some becomes an idol for others. Thinking God can only speak and be found between its covers.
When God tells us he is not found in structures built by human hands,we should realize that includes books.

You are desperately trying to justify rejecting the very councils that ratified the Holy Books as inspired. You make no sense whatsoever.

We are indwelt by Holy Spirit God. He helps us navigate His word. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Imparting unto God a divisive prejudice in His church is that sin of man. Not God.

Tell that to the so called reformers who instigated division and schisms, that has not stopped for 500 years.

It is contrary to scripture to think we are all one in Christ,as the true church in him,and then inject division by gender when it comes to teaching this. God made man and woman in His image and likeness.
Man segregates by gender. When we are all made in God's image and likeness.

That's no excuse for women trying to be men that violates God's order of creation.

 

[Johann]

A fourth one I get for the three prior religions when I declared myself a Baha'i. (We make a kind of Shahada).

Yes-seems you are in a real mess-no offense.

In the Baha'i Faith, declaring oneself a Baha'i involves acknowledging the unity of all Manifestations of God and accepting Bahá'u'lláh as the most recent Manifestation. The declaration can be seen as analogous to a "Shahada" in that it is a statement of faith. Here is an appropriate fourth scriptural reference for the three prior religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) to illustrate the exclusivity of their claims about their faith:

Fourth Scriptural Reference (Islam)
Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:3 (Quran):

"This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."
This verse indicates the finality and completeness of Islam according to Islamic belief, implying that the Quran is the final and complete revelation from God.
Scriptural References
Judaism
Deuteronomy 6:4 (Tanakh/Old Testament)

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."
This verse, known as the Shema, is a central declaration of the monotheistic faith in Judaism and emphasizes the oneness of God.
Christianity
John 14:6 (New Testament)

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"
This verse emphasizes the exclusivity of Jesus as the path to God in Christian belief.
Islam
Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:3 (Quran)

"This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."
This verse emphasizes the completeness and finality of Islam as the ultimate and perfected path to God.
Baha'i Faith
In the Baha'i Faith, believers acknowledge the previous Manifestations and accept Bahá'u'lláh as the most recent Manifestation of God.

Declaration of Faith:

Baha'is often make a declaration of faith that acknowledges the unity of God and the role of Bahá'u'lláh. An example might be:
"I bear witness, O my God, that Thou hast created me to know Thee and to worship Thee. I testify, at this moment, to my powerlessness and to Thy might, to my poverty and to Thy wealth. There is none other God but Thee, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting."
By providing this fourth reference from Islam, we complete the representation of exclusivity claims from these major religions, which can be contrasted with the Baha'i perspective of religious unity and progressive revelation.

J.

 

[Matthias]

“Southern Baptists narrowly rejected a proposal Wednesday to enshrine a ban on churches with women pastors in their constitution after opponents argued that it was unnecessary because the denomination already has a way of ousting such churches.

The measure received support from 61% of the delegates, but it failed to get the required two-thirds supermajority. The action reversed a preliminary vote last year in favor of the official ban.

But it still leaves the Southern Baptist Convention with the official doctrinal statement saying the office of pastor is limited to men. Even the opponents of the ban said they favored that doctrinal statement but didn’t think it was necessary to reinforce it in the constitution. …”

Southern Baptists narrowly reject formal ban on churches with any women pastors

The vote received support from 61% of the delegates, but it failed to get the required two-thirds supermajority.

apnews.com

Bold is mine.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I’ll give you an example from one of my personal experiences in Africa. When I was working in Malawi I stayed in Blantyre but conducted my work in the villages. In Blantyre the women dressed one way; in the villages they dressed another. In Blantyre the women were fully clothed; in the villages some of them were fully clothed and some of them were only partially clothed. This was accepted as normal in the culture. What would Paul have said about it? (I’ll provide one more piece of information about the matter after you’ve had time to think it over.)

It would be amazing to be your neighbor so that you could share with me more experiences like that of your life as minister, specially working with people from other countries or cultures. But Internet is the next good thing, and I hope you can share more of that.

Regarding your question, let me give it a try*

(*In this scenario I would assume that Paul has had enough time to know the congregations of Blantyre and the village... and modern world in general. Otherwise, Paul would die in panic while taking off on a plane from Rome's airport. :) )

1. If women from Blantyre and from the village do not coexist on a regular basis, Paul would let each group of women (and their leaders, specially if male) to agree on which dress code represents modesty and good taste for each culture.

2. If women from Blantyre and from the village visit each other frequently, then Paul would have a meeting with female and male experienced and respected members from each congregation to discuss

• what would be the dress code that, while respecting some elements from their original culture, would cause less discomfort among brethren at the host town.
• how they could encourage tolerance among their fellows to accept the diversity of God's children.

If my supposition of what the outcome of such agreement would be, in practice this will mean that:

1. Women from the village would have to dress completely when visiting Blantyre, although not copying exactly the dress code of the hosts. Perhaps they would wear no shoes, for example, if they are uncomfortable with shoes.
2. Women from Blantyre would attend the village completely dressed, but simplicity in the attire would be highly advised.

 

[Matthias]

It would be amazing to be your neighbor so that you could share with me more experiences like that of your life as minister, specially working with people from other countries or cultures. But Internet is the next good thing, and I hope you can share more of that.

Regarding your question, let me give it a try*

(*In this scenario I would assume that Paul has had enough time to know the congregations of Blantyre and the village... and modern world in general. Otherwise, Paul would die in panic while taking off on a plane from Rome's airport. :) )

1. If women from Blantyre and from the village do not coexist on a regular basis, Paul would let each group of women (and their leaders, specially if male) to agree on which dress code represents modesty and good taste for each culture.

2. If women from Blantyre and from the village visit each other frequently, then Paul would have a meeting with female and male experienced and respected members from each congregation to discuss

• what would be the dress code that, while respecting some elements from their original culture, would cause less discomfort among brethren at the host town.
• how they could encourage tolerance among their fellows to accept the diversity of God's children.

If my supposition of what the outcome of such agreement would be, in practice this will mean that:

1. Women from the village would have to dress completely when visiting Blantyre, although not copying exactly the dress code of the hosts. Perhaps they would wear no shoes, for example, if they are uncomfortable with shoes.
2. Women from Blantyre would attend the village completely dressed, but simplicity in the attire would be highly advised.

I see that you thought deeply about my question. You gave it a good and thorough try!

Now the additional piece of information: None of the women in the villages who were only partially clothed (covered from the waist down) were Christians. Paul would have recognized them as pagans. He wrote his letters to Christians, not to pagans. Nothing that he wrote in his letters concerning women’s issues (men’s issues too, for that matter) would have been applicable to the non-Christian women.

Had they listened to Paul preaching the gospel of the kingdom, believed him, repented and were baptized, then what Paul wrote would be applicable to them. They would no longer be pagan, they would be Christian.

Paul regulates Christians, not non-Christians.

 

[Nancy]

Well, the author of 2 Peter does. I am far from concluding that Simon Peter himself was that author. But my point stands. Paul was referring to the OT when he wrote to Timothy.

2 Peter 1:1
"I Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: 2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."

Just sayin. :)

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Yes-seems you are in a real mess-no offense.

In the Baha'i Faith, declaring oneself a Baha'i involves acknowledging the unity of all Manifestations of God and accepting Bahá'u'lláh as the most recent Manifestation. The declaration can be seen as analogous to a "Shahada" in that it is a statement of faith. Here is an appropriate fourth scriptural reference for the three prior religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) to illustrate the exclusivity of their claims about their faith:

Fourth Scriptural Reference (Islam)
Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:3 (Quran):

"This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."
This verse indicates the finality and completeness of Islam according to Islamic belief, implying that the Quran is the final and complete revelation from God.
Scriptural References
Judaism
Deuteronomy 6:4 (Tanakh/Old Testament)

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."
This verse, known as the Shema, is a central declaration of the monotheistic faith in Judaism and emphasizes the oneness of God.
Christianity
John 14:6 (New Testament)

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"
This verse emphasizes the exclusivity of Jesus as the path to God in Christian belief.
Islam
Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:3 (Quran)

"This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."
This verse emphasizes the completeness and finality of Islam as the ultimate and perfected path to God.
Baha'i Faith
In the Baha'i Faith, believers acknowledge the previous Manifestations and accept Bahá'u'lláh as the most recent Manifestation of God.

Declaration of Faith:

Baha'is often make a declaration of faith that acknowledges the unity of God and the role of Bahá'u'lláh. An example might be:
"I bear witness, O my God, that Thou hast created me to know Thee and to worship Thee. I testify, at this moment, to my powerlessness and to Thy might, to my poverty and to Thy wealth. There is none other God but Thee, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting."
By providing this fourth reference from Islam, we complete the representation of exclusivity claims from these major religions, which can be contrasted with the Baha'i perspective of religious unity and progressive revelation.

J.

I don't see the mess, Johan.
We believe that at each revelation, the most recent Manifestation has been The Way, and revealed the eternal Gospel that all previous Manifestations revealed, with the corresponding adaptations to meet the need of the time and culture.

So, the exclusivity resides in that there is no other way to God but the eternal Gospel, which was Jesus at the time the New Testament was written, but Noah at the time of Noah. If someone didn't listen to Noah, he didn't listen to God. Noah presented the only way to salvation. Noah was "The Way", "The Arch of Salvation", so to speak.

When an atheist becomes a Christian, he accepts that God also spoke through Noah and Moses.
When an atheist becomes a Muslim, he accepts that God also spoke through Noah, Moses, and Jesus.
When an atheist becomes a Bahai, he accepts that God also spoke through Noah, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed.

Oops! I realize that maybe I shouldn't have replied in this tread talking about my faith, but on the Interfaith forum.
Let me know, @Nancy if I did wrong or should move the message.

 

[Nancy]

I don't see the mess, Johan.
We believe that at each revelation, the most recent Manifestation has been The Way, and revealed the eternal Gospel that all previous Manifestations revealed, with the corresponding adaptations to meet the need of the time and culture.

So, the exclusivity resides in that there is no other way to God but the eternal Gospel, which was Jesus at the time the New Testament was written, but Noah at the time of Noah. If someone didn't listen to Noah, he didn't listen to God. Noah presented the only way to salvation. Noah was "The Way", "The Arch of Salvation", so to speak.

When an atheist becomes a Christian, he accepts that God spoke through Noah and Moses.
When an atheist becomes a Muslim, he accepts that God spoke through Noah, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed.
When an atheist becomes a Bahai, he accepts that God spoke through Noah, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh.

Oops! I realize that maybe I shouldn't have replied in this tread talking about my faith, but on the Interfaith forum.
Let me know, @Nancy if I did wrong or should move the message.

If the OP has no issues neither do I brother. :cool:

 

[Johann]

When an atheist becomes a Christian, he accepts that God spoke through Noah and Moses.
When an atheist becomes a Muslim, he accepts that God spoke through Noah, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed.
When an atheist becomes a Bahai, he accepts that God spoke through Noah, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh.

Nope-I cannot agree with you.
Jesus Christ as the Fulfillment of Prophecy and the Only Mediator
Fulfillment of Prophecy:

Matthew 5:17 (ESV): "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Jesus is presented as the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, indicating that He completes the revelation that began with Noah and Moses.
Unique Role of Jesus:

John 14:6 (ESV): "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"
This verse underscores the exclusive role of Jesus as the only path to God, distinguishing Christianity from other religions that recognize multiple prophets as pathways to God.
Jesus as the Final Revelation:

Hebrews 1:1-2 (ESV): "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."
This passage asserts that God's final and complete revelation comes through Jesus Christ, making further prophetic revelations unnecessary.
Jesus' Authority and Divinity:

John 1:1-2, 14 (ESV): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Jesus is described as the Word of God, emphasizing His divine nature and ultimate authority.
Mediator Between God and Man:

1 Timothy 2:5-6 (ESV): "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time."
Jesus is identified as the sole mediator, making a direct connection between humanity and God through His sacrificial death.
Final Sacrifice for Sin:

Hebrews 10:12-14 (ESV): "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."
Jesus' sacrifice is portrayed as once and for all, negating the need for additional mediators or revelations.

When an atheist becomes a Christian, they accept that God has spoken definitively and finally through Jesus Christ. While Christianity acknowledges the role of previous prophets like Noah and Moses, it holds that Jesus is the ultimate and final revelation from God. According to the New Testament, Jesus is the fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecies and the only mediator between God and humanity. This exclusive claim distinguishes Christianity from other faiths/religions/manifestations that recognize a succession of prophets.

If you are honest and transparent you will acknowledge what I have posted to you is the alētheia/Divrei Torah in Emes

J.

 

[Johann]

If the OP has no issues neither do I brother. :cool:

No problems @Nancy
Johann.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I see that you thought deeply about my question. You gave it a good and thorough try!

Now the additional piece of information: None of the women in the villages who were only partially clothed (covered from the waist down) were Christians. Paul would have recognized them as pagans. He wrote his letters to Christians, not to pagans. Nothing that he wrote in his letters concerning women’s issues (men’s issues too, for that matter) would have been applicable to the non-Christian women.

Had they listened to Paul preaching the gospel of the kingdom, believed him, repented and were baptized, then what Paul wrote would be applicable to them. They would no longer be pagan, they would be Christian.

Paul regulates Christians, not non-Christians.

Sounds crystal clear.
I agree.

The principle you have expressed would be very important to bear in mind for a different and interesting discussion: salvation.
In my view, many Evangelical friends forget that Paul faced an important issue at the congregations he served and wrote to: the issue of judaizing members placing requirements to members from Greek background. Paul was not addressing the Celts or Chinese.

 

[Matthias]

I see that you thought deeply about my question. You gave it a good and thorough try!

Now the additional piece of information: None of the women in the villages who were only partially clothed (covered from the waist down) were Christians. Paul would have recognized them as pagans. He wrote his letters to Christians, not to pagans. Nothing that he wrote in his letters concerning women’s issues (men’s issues too, for that matter) would have been applicable to the non-Christian women.

Had they listened to Paul preaching the gospel of the kingdom, believed him, repented and were baptized, then what Paul wrote would be applicable to them. They would no longer be pagan, they would be Christian.

Paul regulates Christians, not non-Christians.

My wife did not accompany me on my trips to Africa. When I returned to the US I discussed it with here. She asked what I did when I entered the villages and encountered topless women. I told her, jokingly, that I saluted them and hummed a few bars of The Star Spangled Banner. What I really did was to pray before I went into the villages and ignored their state of undress. I met them where they were. There was nothing sexual about it, on my part or theirs. It was just another routine day in the culture. If it makes sense to you, I approached it as if I were a medical physician consulting with a patient.

I thought what you spelled out in your response @Pancho Frijoles was good. Something along those lines would have happened if the women in the villages had converted to Christianity and become part of the body of Messiah.

 

[RedFan]

2 Peter 1:1
"I Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: 2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."

Just sayin. :)

Just sayin' that pseudographical works didn't exist back then? Or something else?

2 Peter and Pseudepigraphy - Reading Acts

Second Peter is something of a textbook case for Pseudepigraphy. Outside of conservative circles, few accept the idea historical Peter was the author of the book. As J. N. D. Kelly said in 1969, “scarcely anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous.” Despite several excellent...

readingacts.com

 

[RedFan]

Excellent. The WOC is urging us, and all viewers of their video, not to listen to scripture.



Do you also accept that what the author of 2 Peter wrote is scripture?

That's a harder one, because I'm convinced -- as most scholars are -- that 2 Peter is pseudographical. 2 Peter and Pseudepigraphy - Reading Acts

But since "Scripture" simply means the sacred writings of a given religion, and the Christian NT canon came to include 2 Peter, I have to say that it qualifies as Scripture by definition. (That doesn't mean I believe every word of Scripture to be inerrant.)

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

My wife did not accompany me on my trips to Africa. When I returned to the US I discussed it with here. She asked what I did when I entered the villages and encountered topless women. I told her, jokingly, that I saluted them and hummed a few bars of The Star Spangled Banner. What I really did was to pray before I went into the villages and ignored their state of undress. I met them where they were. There was nothing sexual about it, on my part or theirs. It was just another routine day in the culture. If it makes sense to you, I approached it as if I were a medical physician consulting with a patient.

I thought what you spelled out in your response @Pancho Frijoles was good. Something along those lines would have happened if the women in the villages had converted to Christianity and become part of the body of Messiah.

Now, it’s my turn to offer an scenario for you to think about ::)

One group of Muslim women of Arab descent who dress according to the hijab code convert to Christianism in Louisville. They start attending a Christian church where you are the pastor. They tell you they have dressed hijab all their lives and feel like “naked” if they don’t wear it in public. Furthermore, they confess they feel somewhat uncomfortable seeing that some young Christian women attend wearing skirts that look too short or cleavages too deep. At the same time, some sisters who have attended your church for years approach you and let you know they feel “weird” sitting next to them as “they don't look like Christians”. What would you do?

 

[Matthias]

Now, it’s my turn to offer an scenario for you to think about ::)

One group of Muslim mature women of Arab descent who dress according to the hijab code convert to Christianism in Louisville. They start attending a Christian church where you are the pastor. They tell you they have dressed hijab all their lives and feel like “naked” if they don’t wear it in public. Furthermore, they confess they feel somewhat uncomfortable seeing that some young Christian women attend wearing skirts that look too short or cleavages too deep. At the same time, some sisters who have attended your church for years approach you and let you know they feel “weird” sitting next to them as “they don't look like Christians”. What would you do?

View attachment 46500

I live roughly 30 miles south of Louisville. I go there from time to time but avoid going as much as possible. But you’ve placed me there, and in the middle of a problem in a church setting that I’m responsible for pastoring. What would I do?

I would begin the meeting by praying with them, and for them, and for the entire church.

I listen to them speak about their feelings, noting the tone of their voices and the words that they are using. I see and hear that they’ve been respectful of one another in their communication. (A detail that you didn’t provide - and I’m taking advantage of!)

I’m looking at the way the two women are dressed. I take it that they are fairly representative of the two groups, though one of the women is wearing slacks or jeans rather than a dress, and her shirt is unbuttoned at the top but showing very little cleavage. While they are dressed differently, their clothes are clean, they fit each woman well, they’re not wrinkled or soiled; their hair, skin and nails appear to be clean and well-cared for, they‘re both dressed modestly. They’re feminine in appearance. Both have followed Paul’s instructions to women in the church.

I note something else: their body language. They‘re sitting close together. Their heads are touching. Their eyes are sparkling. Their nostrils are neither flared nor closed. Their mouths are closed and their lips are smiling. Their hands are folded peacefully together. Their posture is good. They’re looking at me, not at the floor or ceiling. If there is a problem between them, their body language doesn’t show it. They give the impression of genuinely loving one another as sisters in the faith, and of being ready to listen and work cooperatively together to resolve their differences.

I would share these observations with them. I would ask them an important question -> How have the men in the congregation been acting toward them? (I haven’t seen or heard any of the men talking about it, or acting improperly around them. Maybe the women have noticed something with them that I haven’t. If they have, they haven’t shared it with me.)

If the way the women are dressed isn’t causing a problem for the men, then the problem is much smaller than if it were causing a problem for them. Assuming that it isn’t a problem for the men, this is strictly a female vs. female issue. So what is the real problem? Is it jealousy? Is it envy? Is it something that isn’t really related to attire and that clothing is just a convenient excuse? Is it a power struggle? Is it a culture issue?

From all that I’ve been able to gather, it appears to be a culture related issue. Education on respective cultures may be all that is needed to resolve the problem. If that proved to be the case, I would ask them how they would like to go about doing that. If a mutually acceptable way is agreed upon between them, that’s what I would recommend. I would follow-up to confirm that it was done and then inquire if that was sufficient to resolve the problem. If it was, problem solved. If it wasn’t, I would find out why and then seek a solution for it.

In the meantime, I would ask them to show grace to one another; to act as they did when they came to me with the problem. Love one another, the standing order for all in the faith.

That’s best case scenario.

What, though, if it doesn’t go down that way? What if the body language changed as the meeting progressed, the tone of voice became ominous and the words became harsh?

I’ve had some tense meetings in real life but never anything that I wasn’t able to gain control of quickly. I would remind the contentious parties that we’re Christians, not barbarians, and should act like it. I might suggest a brief recess if things got to that point. When the meeting resumed, I would start the process again. What is the body language saying now? Have things been said that need to be apologized for? Reevaluate the problem. It wasn’t what I thought it was? I need to find out what the problem really is before we can move forward.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Now, it’s my turn to offer an scenario for you to think about ::)

One group of Muslim women of Arab descent who dress according to the hijab code convert to Christianism in Louisville. They start attending a Christian church where you are the pastor. They tell you they have dressed hijab all their lives and feel like “naked” if they don’t wear it in public. Furthermore, they confess they feel somewhat uncomfortable seeing that some young Christian women attend wearing skirts that look too short or cleavages too deep. At the same time, some sisters who have attended your church for years approach you and let you know they feel “weird” sitting next to them as “they don't look like Christians”. What would you do?

View attachment 46500

I would like to point out that our eyes would never reject such beautiful looking women, no matter what they wore…..just saying…..perhaps if they were ugly women, we might not be swayed in our opinions?

But if one walked into a church and saw women wearing hijabs, there would be only one conclusion to be drawn…..it is religious attire, and nothing to do with Christian modesty.

I also wonder why covering the hair is such an important thing in Islam, as it is basically what identifies a woman as Muslim……as Christians, we believe what Paul wrote…

”Does not nature itself teach you that long hair is a dishonor to a man, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her instead of a covering. 16 However, if anyone wants to argue in favor of some other custom, we have no other, nor do the congregations of God.” (1 Cor 11:14-16)

Since a woman’s hair is “given to her instead of a head covering” why the need to wear a head covering?
Paul says no other argument to the contrary is valid as there is just one standard for all.

And since this is not a scriptural command, but a tradition of men in another faith, a Christian woman would wear what is appropriate dress in her culture. Jesus teaches modesty, but the fashion traits of the times often dictate what is acceptable to the masses who follow it. But for Christians, there is only one standard of modesty….God’s standard.
And it does not include covering a woman’s hair as if only her husband and children are allowed to see her at home without one. Strongly entrenched traditions, if they have no basis in scripture, are the teachings of men…..to be discarded by those who want to please God, not in following tradition for the sake of it.