Headship Series

[nett]

Wrong, the scriptural arguments are in part 5.

I didn't find any scriptural arguments. Just very poor attempts at exegeting a new meaning out of the greek. The author completely glosses over 1 Cor 11, then says "Paul's purpose seems to be the establishing of ‘proper’ distinction between men and women rather than with male superiority or authority. The practical issue of attire is uppermost in his mind.” This is a major contradiction.

Why was this even posted? MM's talk has a lot of great discussion points, while this series of articles is quite literally childish.

[Sudsy]

Wrong, the scriptural arguments are in part 5.

I didn't find any scriptural arguments. Just very poor attempts at exegeting a new meaning out of the greek. The author completely glosses over 1 Cor 11, then says "Paul's purpose seems to be the establishing of ‘proper’ distinction between men and women rather than with male superiority or authority. The practical issue of attire is uppermost in his mind.” This is a major contradiction.

Why was this even posted? MM's talk has a lot of great discussion points, while this series of articles is quite literally childish.

Is that your best shot ? Surely you can do better than calling an alternate view "childish".

What I was saying was that in part 5 and some in part 4 is where specific scriptures were referred to.

Nothing is stopping you from discussing the MM videos. I have and plan to watch the last one shortly.

[nett]

Is that your best shot ? Surely you can do better than calling an alternate view "childish".

What I was saying was that in part 5 and some in part 4 is where specific scriptures were referred to.

Nothing is stopping you from discussing the MM videos. I have and plan to watch the last one shortly.

I read all 5 parts. I wish I hadn't, but here's a summary: "Women are equivalent to men in society, so Christians needs to accept that, and adapt their theology to match society"

Complete nonsense.

[Grace]

Is that your best shot ? Surely you can do better than calling an alternate view "childish".

What I was saying was that in part 5 and some in part 4 is where specific scriptures were referred to.

Nothing is stopping you from discussing the MM videos. I have and plan to watch the last one shortly.

I read all 5 parts. I wish I hadn't, but here's a summary: "Women are equivalent to men in society, so Christians needs to accept that, and adapt their theology to match society"

Complete nonsense.

Adapt their theology to match society ??? LOL.... it seems society these days, can't even define what a "woman" is. (Except,of course if a woman wants to kill their unborn child)

[nett]

Is that your best shot ? Surely you can do better than calling an alternate view "childish".

What I was saying was that in part 5 and some in part 4 is where specific scriptures were referred to.

Nothing is stopping you from discussing the MM videos. I have and plan to watch the last one shortly.

I read all 5 parts. I wish I hadn't, but here's a summary: "Women are equivalent to men in society, so Christians needs to accept that, and adapt their theology to match society"

Complete nonsense.

Adapt their theology to match society ??? LOL.... it seems society these days, can't even define what a "woman" is. (Except,of course if a woman wants to kill their unborn child)

Well this series was written in 2015, things were a lot more "normal" then, I suppose.

[Sudsy]

Is that your best shot ? Surely you can do better than calling an alternate view "childish".

What I was saying was that in part 5 and some in part 4 is where specific scriptures were referred to.

Nothing is stopping you from discussing the MM videos. I have and plan to watch the last one shortly.

I read all 5 parts. I wish I hadn't, but here's a summary: "Women are equivalent to men in society, so Christians needs to accept that, and adapt their theology to match society"

Complete nonsense.

'Complete nonsense' . Not convinced that is taking a better shot, at the opposing view I gave a link to, when you called it 'childish' . . However, I'm glad you took the time to read all 5 parts before giving your summary. Actually to some extent I agree with your summary statement just not as a summary statement of the article. I will explain later.

I will give, like it or not , my view on part 5 sometime today and where I think differently than this brother in the OP videos. Since the OP did not put parameters on just what we could say, like some other posts do, I think other views here are fair game.

[temporal1]

I read all 5 parts. I wish I hadn't, but here's a summary:
“Women are equivalent to men in society,
so Christians need to accept that, and adapt their theology to match society"

Complete nonsense.

It seamlessly aligns with what obama+hillary stated from their pulpits in top elected gov office.

[Sudsy]

Thoughts on part 5 -

He talks about when women can prophesize and gives some examples outside the local church. I take it because in the local church they are to be silent. Then he suggests the head covering out in public is a way to prophesy as it tells people in the world what God wants them to know about creation and it calls Christians back to covenant faithfulness. He goes on to say the headcovering might cause someone to ask why you wear it and gives an opportunity to witness.

Really ? The headcovering tells people in the world something about creation and it also calls other Christians back to covenant faithfulness ? I would like to see a poll taken on this amongst believers and non-believers in our world to agree with this. My going in prediction is that neither of these is what is happening. It seems like a stretch to think a headcovering in public is a tool to open the door to evangelizing and if it ever does occur, I would be interested to know how women get into a discussion regarding salvation from someone asking about their unique headcover. It can happen but does it ? How often has any lady ever been asked about their headcovering and led someone to Christ that began this way. And later on he says don't reply that you are a Mennonite or some other religious group. If a Christian asks who doesn't cover then get into giving them a bible study on the subject.

And this is where I think outward appearances of being so different from the world wanders from the bible. Scripture says it is our good deeds that are the attention getter that has impact on the world and not our special kind of outward dress. If this works perhaps we should go back to real NT practises for clothes and wear robes and sandals. I wonder if men who wear suspenders also see these as an opportunity to be questioned to evangelize.

With all that opinion given, I believe there are attention getter manners of dress that the world uses that we need not follow. I wonder also about Christian designed clothes with scripture verses etc on them. Or the cape dress style being long and often flowery and modern with flashy running shoes. This would cause me to ask questions more than wearing a little head covering. If these draw the unsaved into conversation about the Lord, wonderful but they also can be a stumbling block when a believer acts in a carnal way wearing these kind of clothes. However, doing good deeds faithfully in a Christ loving way is pretty hard to ignore. Even if someone calls you a good person because of these, which even some of the unsaved do, you can always point them to Jesus and tell them how He is what drives them to be like He was. Jesus said our lights shine through our good deeds when done in such a way that points people to Christ. He does not say it is through our dress.

I believe he happens to give some good arguments for egalitarian thoughts how God sees man and woman as one. Marriage is bringing us together as one 'new thing' as he outs it. And I agree with his thoughts on doing greater things being of quantity as we reach more of the unsaved than they did in that era. But although he argues we are one in Christ he still believes we are distinct with distinct roles. This is where I believe differently and see God using some women in leading roles throughout the world to further His Kingdom.

His thoughts on when one knows exactly when something is cultural and when it is not, and he includes the holy kiss, is not as straight forward as he seems to make it. Imo, there is a lot of 'cherry picking' in this area to pick and chose those literal things that gives a group their special identification. And often one must conform or else go start their own group, which many have. He argues that since Paul uses arguments involving nature that these instructions are timeless. And also if the history of the church has followed certain patterns, this must make it required. And as mentioned before the history of the church has supported slavery but that finally was determined to be wrong.

He uses the women being silent in the church meaning they are not to prophesy in the church only outside. But it says that all should prophesy in the church not just men. When it is saying women are to be silent the context is that they shouldn't be interrupting the service by asking their husbands questions during church they should do this when they get home. I'm so thankful that the lady pastor I listened to for some 20 years did not keep silent as in not preaching and teaching us all in the church.

His accountability group reviews are interesting but what stands out to me in all of his teachings is very little is said about the Holy Spirit being our guide. From there being a Father, a Son, a man and a woman in his diagram it perplexes me to where he things the Holy Spirit fits in. I believe we need Spirit assessments not self assessments. Do we believe the Holy Spirit speaks to us guiding our way or do we do self analysis. Seems the Holy Spirit is left out of his teachings. I don't agree that we know what we should be and do unless we are allowing the Spirit to guide us. And he does this in various ways, including speaking through others. Self assessment is not what keeps the church on track but rather giving ear to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I do think he makes good points about staying away from being a group with certain unique ways of being a Christ follower. As he points out that those who do have a hard time making disciples. Myself, I believe the same holds true for cape dresses and suspenders and odd head coverings and things like that. I don't see these as practises that do much to build the Kingdom.

He ends with hoping there are more conversations regarding these issues and although I believe they have their place as we are doing here I believe they have been big hindrances to spreading the Gospel and reaching the unsaved. What is God most concerned about ? Coming from an evangelical background I have been taught that reaching the lost is of highest priority. Our lady pastor always wore a hat and so did most women in the church in that day. It just wasn't not an issue to focus on. So I am going to be uncomfortable with focus in Christianity that is on other areas. When I hear a brother such as this I would like to talk to him about how he goes about winning souls for Christ.

This is not to say most evangelical Christians evangelize either, the majority don't and many are not involved in good deeds like the Salvation Army has lead the way in doing. But looking close at what scripture says, what speaks to the unsaved world about who Christ is, our outward apparel or our good deeds ? How did Jesus say we shine our lights ? And does the world know why we are so involved in good deeds ?

Well, I might have mis-understood some of what he was saying but this is my current response to it. There are some points he made that I will study further but they just are not a priority at this time.

[Outsider]

. From there being a Father, a Son, a man and a woman in his diagram it perplexes me to where he things the Holy Spirit fits in. I believe we need Spirit assessments not self assessments. Do we believe the Holy Spirit speaks to us guiding our way or do we do self analysis. Seems the Holy Spirit is left out of his teachings. I don't agree that we know what we should be and do unless we are allowing the Spirit to guide us. And he does this in various ways, including speaking through others. Self assessment is not what keeps the church on track but rather giving ear to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[ken_sylvania]

It seems like a stretch to think a headcovering in public is a tool to open the door to evangelizing and if it ever does occur, I would be interested to know how women get into a discussion regarding salvation from someone asking about their unique headcover. It can happen but does it ?

Yes, it happens.

With all that opinion given, I believe there are attention getter manners of dress that the world uses that we need not follow. I wonder also about Christian designed clothes with scripture verses etc on them. Or the cape dress style being long and often flowery and modern with flashy running shoes. This would cause me to ask questions more than wearing a little head covering. If these draw the unsaved into conversation about the Lord, wonderful but they also can be a stumbling block when a believer acts in a carnal way wearing these kind of clothes. However, doing good deeds faithfully in a Christ loving way is pretty hard to ignore. Even if someone calls you a good person because of these, which even some of the unsaved do, you can always point them to Jesus and tell them how He is what drives them to be like He was. Jesus said our lights shine through our good deeds when done in such a way that points people to Christ. He does not say it is through our dress.

The argument seems to be that a Christian ought to try to blend in with non-Christians for fear that his lack of Christ-likeness would be a poor testimony??? Isn't that kind of weird approach? Why not focus on ensuring being Christlike and putting away carnal behavior instead of making sure we are well enough camouflaged that we can be bad without people knowing we claim to be Christians?