Women's lib???

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Bro. Brad wrote:

(With regard to our Women in ministry discussion.)
>>
I think that there is a specific reason.  I don't think that women's
liberation should have any bearing on our theological discussion.
<<

Well, Bro. Brad, I must forgive you for not knowing me at all (which is
obvious by this statement).  Ask anyone on this list and you will find that
I am one of the most "right" conservatives on this list.  I'm the biggest
advocate, not only for mothers staying at home with the kids, but for
homeschooling as well.  Besides, I'm only 21 years old, I wasn't even
*born* when a lot of this "women's lib" junk came about.  All I'm pointing
out is that the Bible does not forbid women in the ministry.  It simply
does not.  And there are too many cases of powerful things happening under
female leadership in the church today to change my mind on this.  If God
didn't approve, he'd surely let us know (as he does any other time in the
Bible when people did wrong).

As for the verse on "subjection" it actually reads "...*learn in* silence
with all subjection", not "be" in silence (I never said *you* said that,
just making a point).  So, if the situation has a woman in a position of
learning (as opposed to teaching) she should be silent and not ask too many
questions to disrupt the lesson.  You have to remember that this is the
first generation of women to be permitted to learn the scripture.  When you
first heard the word, didn't you have a lot of questions?  Didn't you ask a
lot of questions, sometimes in the middle of a discussion?  Even if you
didn't many people (men included, today) do.  Men at this time were already
accustomed to learning in silence, which is why there was no need to
include men in this verse.  


Again, a study of culture and original languages helps,
(Me, women's lib...hahahahahaha!--Sorry, couldn't help it.)
Anneliese