Many former WCG men and women who have been influenced by the ideas of Simone de Beauvior and her followers, now reject the teachings of the bible on the status and role of Christian women. With the transformation of WCG to GCI, Joe junior has allowed the development of what is called, "Women Ministries." And many of the COGs, that had their roots in WCG, have adopted a liberal view toward the role of women in their respective churches.
However, the teaching of the bible on the role of women is very clear and emphatic thus: "I would have you know that, the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God"(1 Cor.11:3). This structure was established by God, and not Herbert W. Armstrong, as many seemed to believe.
Now Paul's inspired instruction to the church on the role women is, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law"(1 Cor.14:34). And in his letter to Timothy, he writes: "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over the man, but be in silence."
Yet, in spite of these inspired instructions, GCI now allow women to song lead, give opening and closing prayers, sermonettes and even write teaching articles for its flagship publication. The other COGs may not have gone that far, but some are definitely disobeying and rejecting the clear teachings of the bible, in order to placate rebellious women who have been influenced by the ideas of Simone de Beauvior and her followers. Of course, for centuries in Baptist and Pentecostal churches, women have been preaching, testifying and falling to the floor claiming to be speaking in tongues.
Well, a salutary reminder to the women who think they are behaving like the "five wise virgins," but are actually behaving like the "foolish," might be, "remember Lot's wife."
8 comments:
Most so-called Christians don't give a hoot about what the Bible actually says. Perhaps they don't believe it really is the Word of God.
And quite a lot of Christians seem to be the worst kind of hypocrites, too... isn't that the meaning of "taking God's name in vain"..?
I am female and I do understand and believe God,s instruction to women but Tom I get the feeling that your views regarding women are more like the Taliban,s rather than Jesus Christ. It is very hard for people to get the balance on these things. It takes God,s Holy Spirit working in us. Jesus Christ was not a bleeding heart liberal but neither was Taliban.
Anon said...
>>I am female and I do understand and believe God,s instruction to women...<<
If you understand God's instruction to women, why do you appear to be upset with the scriptural texts I have quoted? Are you saying that women should be allowed to speak in church, even though the Word of God says they shouldn't?
>>...but Tom I get the feeling that your views regarding women are more like the Taliban,s rather than Jesus Christ.<<
What are my views regarding women? I have not expressed any personal views about women. All I have done is quote the relevant scriptural texts, so please don't shoot the messenger?
>>It is very hard for people to get the balance on these things.<<
A balance is not needed! What is required is compliance from the ministry, and obedience from women. If these were done, all would be well.
>>It takes God,s Holy Spirit working in us.<<
I agree. For Jesus said: "Without me, you can do nothing." If the Holy Spirit is not at work in the lives of people, no amount of preaching is of any help to them. For the word of God will go in one ear and out the next. And sadly, that is what has been happening to most people all these years in WCG.
How come you haven't been commenting on AW recently, have you been moderated?
Robert asked...
>>How come you haven't been commenting on AW recently, have you been moderated?<<
I submitted a couple of comments on "The Role of Women in The Church," but they were not published. Since then I have not submitted any more comments, so I don't really know if I have been moderated out.
However, I don't always feel the need to comment on the back stabbing that is going on in cog-land, as I am more interested in doctrines of the bible.
Many at AW won't admit it, but my comments, however controversial, tend to generate many more responses, and a much more interesting debate than the standard, glib comments often posted by regular contributors. So, if I have been moderated out, my absence is they lost!
Anyway, I have posted a few comments on PZ Myers' blog. The man and his followers are positively insane!
"Anyway, I have posted a few comments on PZ Myers' blog. The man and his followers are positively insane!"
Insane because they don't "believe" in an imaginary sky friend? Or a 6,000 year old world created by said imaginary sky friend? Insane because they find the scientific explanations of life far more persuasive than the ramblings of premodern people living in an ancient world? Yeah, that makes sense.
Yep, with that edumacation and our uppity ways we sure are insane!
Oh, and I understand the admonishment not to shoot the messenger, but you are choosing passages of a fictional work, thousands of pages long, that illustrate ways to oppress others.
Out of thousands of words you choose this? Fictional or not it says a lot about you whether you like it or not.
Roger said...
>>Insane because they don't "believe" in an imaginary sky friend?<<
If they did believe in "an imaginary sky friend," that would be adding nervous derangement to positive insanity.
Post a Comment