In a recent posting on COGWRITER, "Are Women to Give Sermons?", Bob Thiel says...
"Let me make a few points.
First, while Tina Engelbart is entitled to her opinion about what she thinks the Greek means, the reality is that there is no record of Christian women preaching in either the New Testament nor in early Christian writings. While it is possible that the apostate Simon Magus may have had a female preach, and maybe some of the other apostates did, people who understood koine Greek at the time apparently did not feel that the Apostle Paul was allowing women to preach.
Second, UCG is correct that women should not be preaching. This is confirmed by the following passage that is in the Bible (hence, even allowing for a different translation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, this is not something only to be derived from the Talmud as Tina Engelbart indicates):
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:11-12).
It is also a historically accurate position as the early COG did not have women preaching in services."
https://www.cogwriter.com/news/doctrine/are-women-to-give-sermons/
I would suggest that Dr Thiel keep reading to fully understand Paul's reasons for his opinions. And that this is just Paul's opinion.
Let me make a few points as well...
I Timothy 2:
11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.... KEEP READING BOB 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
First of all, Paul says it is his rule. He does not permit it. It's his opinion and he has nothing from his hallucinatory Jesus to quote about the issue. Neither would he find anything in the Gospels which came long after his death.
Secondly, His opinion is based on the mythic story of Adam and Eve as to how men were first created and then women, (from the rib no less) of the first man Adam. The story is not literally true.
Paul makes Adam being created first a significant pecking order issue as to the differences between a man's authority and a woman's. The story of Adam and Eve is simply that, a story. You cannot take a myth, no matter what the context, to make up literally true rules.
The purpose of the story was to establish the fault of women for just about everything since time began and debunking goddess worship in the nations around Israel. The story is to promote Patriarchy in the form of Priests, Temples and Animal sacrifices as the way of Israel. The way of Matriarchy, as in the pagan nations worshipping fertility. agricultural phenomenon and the goddess was not going to be the way of Israel. This is the mentality of the Bronze and Iron Age and not the Computer and Space Age.
Thirdly, Paul makes the point that in his view and in the tale, Adam was not deceived. He was a total non-player, even in the story. The story actually reminds us that Adam was right there with Eve, but this is conveniently overlooked by Paul to make his opinion on the matter more valid and credible.
In reality, Adam evidently had a problem speaking up. At best, Adam was not in charge of the situation in the least. At worst, he was deceived equally "and did eat." They are both "transgressors" in this and equally. Paul downplays that reality so he can make his point and defend his position that woman are not to speak in church or sermonize. Paul had a personal problem with women in his life I suspect.
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it."
Genesis 3:16 16To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
How close women almost came to having painless and pleasurable childbirth! Thanks a lot Eve!
How convenient and ludicrous. In the story, Eve or no woman had yet given birth to another human, so it was evidently a convenient time to tell women that it would be painful and this is part of her punishment. I would like to suggest that had this story never been told, childbirth would probably still be painful but the reason would be simply because this kind of experience for a woman is painful.
It's kind of like the Jesuits showing up at an Indian village and announcing that if they did not turn over their land, they would make the Sun or the moon go dark. Knowing the timing of solar and lunar eclipses no doubt helped them along in this trickery. I would have loved to seen a knowledgeable tribe member tell them, "Ok, do it right now and we will, but if you fail, we'll burn you at the stake." "Yeah no...we gotta go"
Like Paul, Bob, that is merely your opinion, and have failed to tell the whole story.
So Women of the Church, If you would like to hear an hour and half of what Bob admits "might be a little controversial" and give the impression he's not quite sure himself about the topic, you will enjoy what your true "role" is.
Bob makes the poetic point that women "were not taken from the head of man to be over him nor from the feet to be trampled underfoot" as the nice quote goes, but from the rib as his equal, etc. The real reason women come from the rib of man is that men have lots of ribs and losing one is more because there are lots of them and won't be missed. Women weren't taken from fingers as one might need all ten along the way. Fingers are more significant than one of 24 ribs. So are men more than women.
When teaching anatomy in massage schools, I'd get to the anatomy of the rib cage and how breathing works and say "First of all we have 24 ribs...." Then I would wait. It was always a female student. Up goes the hand. "But men have one less right?" I'd say no but I understand where you get that from. They'd get upset because in church they were told the tale. My answer was that if I cut off your finger, your children would still have ten fingers at birth. And just counting modern-day man's ribs pretty much took care of the question. One said she was telling her dad what I said and I told her to have him call me if he'd like. (The "call me, let's reason together" is ever with me.) Dad must have chickened out. I admit I should not have said: "...and have him explain Santa to you too." It just slipped out.
"Enjoy..."
34 comments:
What’s new? All the COG’s do this.. David Pack even openly said that ‘Women have no voice’.
My personal theory about this is, that by putting women in the submissive position the COG leaders give the male member something/someone to ‘lord over’. Keeping them happy and make them feel as if they have anything to say .. What the males don’t realize (men 🙄), is that they get told they are ‘the head’ to keep them from revolting.
If the COG’s would treat the male member in the same way they treat their female members, there would be a massive exodus..
David Pack even openly said that ‘Women have no voice’.
Unless the woman is an RCG member and her husband isn't. Then she apparently has the 'voice' to give Dave half the family assets. In his "Clarion Call" sermon he flips both ways...
Women submission is a Catholic doctrine.
Thiel is a failed Catholic.
The continuing church of god is a failed cult.
The superiority of the male over the female and the obligation for the female to recognize this is clear taught in the NT. It is not made up by the COGs or any of the fundamentalist denominations that teach this. The problem is, first and foremost, the Book and outdated teachings based on mistaken beliefs.
I know women who are REAL Bible scholars and have spend decades sifting through scriptures, its meanings, its sources, etc. Their knowledge is so far superior to Bob's that he would be cowering in the backroom of his headquarters shop in Grover Beach if he ever tried to debate them.
I also know women preachers who are far more effective in their preaching than Bob can ever dream of being. When they speak you actually learn something in 15 - 20 minutes instead of trying to decipher an hour and half of hand waving, chair bouncing, and Bible thrusting that make up a Thiel sermon.
Bob's theology has never advanced further than the Catholic information he was fed when he was younger and the 50 or so COG booklets he gets his information from. Regurgataing tired and worn out COG myths and interpretations just demonstrate how shallow and uneducated he is when it comes to the Bible.
The WWCOG woman's speaking club in my church area forbad women from evaluating speeches. The reason given was that women were found to be "caty," ie, petty and critical.
I believe this since I often experienced this on dates. Women won't just tell your faults, they will tell you the cracks in your faults. Then the cracks in the cracks of your faults. Then the cracks in the cracks in the cracks of your faults.
Paul was right to keep them from preaching.
Dennis
The problem is, that the COG’s all to often misuse what is in the scripture to prove that women are BENEATH men. Instead of pointing out that a women’s place is NEXT to her husband, fiancé etc.
It is all about power
10:25 wrote: "The WWCOG woman's speaking club in my church area forbad women from evaluating speeches. The reason given was that women were found to be "caty," ie, petty and critical. "
I did Spokesman Club one year and I have to say that the men were downright nasty, unnecessarily critical, and catty in their evaluations. It was disgusting the way they acted. I refused to ever attend another Spokesman Club again.
I have done Toastmasters International which is an organization built upon integrity and helping people, unlike Armstrongism's Spokesmen Club which is meant to break down and devalue people and their opinions until they are broken and start spouting the party line.
In the COG , women are not allowed to preach, but if you are a "closet" gay male, you might be able to pull it off. Historically, this has happened many times, and for years.
"Women won't just tell your faults, they will tell you the cracks in your faults. Then the cracks in the cracks of your faults. Then the cracks in the cracks in the cracks of your faults."I
You mean like you're doing now?
km
One of the main reasons I never liked women evaluating me was they were way to insightful and too spot on. Thank God the author of Timothy put a lid on that monkey business! lol.
Your last paragraph is 💯! It’s so twisted what they actually to do men. Puppet makers.
It's their preexisting prejudice against women which is the reason they don't want women to speak. No need to dig into a Bible verse that may superficially supports that, just a hint is all that's needed to justify the suppression.
If they were concerned with what the Bible says on this subject, then they would recognize that because we are in the last days, per their own escatology, they would jump at the opportunity to remove the supposed prohibition of women speaking as to not suppress the pouring out of the gift of prophecy spoken of in Acts.
Act 2:18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
If women want equality, why don't they share the cost of a date? For that matter, why don't they ask the man out, and pay the full cost themselves? I like the idea of being chauffeured in a car, with my date paying for the meal and entertainment. They need to be consistent rather than having it both ways.
THIEL'S A MENTAL MIDGET.
Why bother with a certifiable moron?
Thiel said, "...there is no record of Christian women preaching in either the New Testament nor in early Christian writings."
Hmm... "There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem." Luke 2:36-38
If the prophet Anna, who was a REAL prophet, and not an imposter or false prophet "spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem" and she "never left the temple" then that would imply that she did all this speaking about the child at the temple, and was allowed to do so. Might this be considered "preaching" which is to publicly proclaim, teach, earnestly advocate, etc.? And it doesn't say anywhere that she only "spoke" to the women. It says plainly that she spoke to "all".
We might also look at this passage... "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved." 1Corinthians 11:2 When this passage is read the focus is usually placed on the issue of head coverings, and what Paul meant by this. What is lost in the shuffle though is that a woman is "praying" and "prophesying" and the very context implies that she is doing this in a public manner, and in front of a mixed audience of men and women, otherwise why would whether her head is covered or not even be an issue?
We also have Philip's daughters..."He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied." Acts 21:9 The scripture doesn't say specifically whom they prophesied to, or under what circumstances, but the fact that it is mentioned at all is an indication that they had the gift of prophesy and were known for using that gift among the congregation. To prophesy as Paul explained is not just the foretelling some future event, "But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort." 1Corinthians 14:3 and Paul also tells the Corinthians "For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged." 1Corinthians14:31 As we see "prophesying" also serves to "instruct" which in this verse is the Greek word manthanó, which means to learn, so if one is allowed to prophesy, you could say they are also allowed to teach, since learning is one purpose of listening to those who prophesy.
So, I might ask, if Paul's goal was really to completely silence women in the congregation (ekklesia), then why do we have specific examples in the New Testament of women exercising the gift of prophesy both in the temple and among the congregation, and why did Paul himself feel the need to address the issue of head coverings when women were prophesying and then tell the Corinthians they could ALL prophesy in turn, which would mean that they had to open their mouths within the congregation to do so, just to turn around and tell women to shut up? Or perhaps we haven't studied all the scriptures, and are only cherry picking those that on the surface might serve to promote our own ideas of what is proper or not? And maybe we have misunderstood Paul and his intent.
Concerned Sister
Anon 3:16
If men want that why don’t they stop talking women down and pay the equally qualified women the same salary for the same jobs? Or why don’t men offer their wives to stay at home and take care of the kids, so his wife can focus on her career? Or why do the COG’s still tell the girls that ‘having an education and a career is overrated and she should focus on making a good wife and mother’. I’ve heard our minister say that multiple times. They don’t outright say ‘You should stay at home’, but they’re implying it and discourage these girls to follow their dreams and build a future for themselves.
There are good examples of countries where women take care of themselves financially and their salaries are equal to that of men: Sweden, Holland, etc. And - surprise! - these women find it normal to pay for a dinner or ask a guy out (maybe that’s were ‘going Dutch’ comes from?)
Men (and especially the men in the COG’s) need to do some emancipating as well
Mmmm ... This whole men vs women discussion is a perfect example of what the COG leaders do: divide and rule.
If you can make sure that there will be no unity amongst the ones you want to rule over, you divide them. You divide married couples, families, friends, the congregation. People are easier to control if they’re divided and will almost always automatically look for a strong leader. That principle is being used by politicians, but also by Thiel, Pack and any of the other GOG leaders.
Women and men are different by nature. But ‘different’ doesn’t mean ‘less worthy’ or ‘to be ruled over’
The CONVERTED females from the Bible, who we read so little of in Church, are NOT to be compared to the vast majority of spoilt, lying, self centered, troublesome, jealous, vindicful, hateful and all round complete bitches that reside in the Churches of God today.
And no I'm not a unmarried man.
If the Churches of God allowed female speakers we all know what would happen.
The churches queens and princesess would stampede to the pulpit. i.e. The Pastors wives and daughters.
Concerned Sister noted: And maybe we have misunderstood Paul and his intent.
That can be a problem with understanding Paul to begin with. If he had a specific intent, perhaps involving a specific incident or topic, he fails to reveal it. It would help if there was such a specific reason for his comments.
Also , it was commonly known that we read in 2 Peter 3:16,
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." "THESE THINGS" are referring to the previous rant about Jesus not coming soon in the common sense of the word "soon" and people not getting what he means about that. The "don't you know that with the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day" is an apologetic given in the previous verses as to why soon did not mean "soon" as men count soon. It's a stupid argument but made up on the spot rather than say, "I see what you mean. I have wondered that myself"
This problem reflects a much later time when church members were beginning to doubt and something had to be done. Of course they didn't "know a day with the Lord is...." That was just made up now. Why they weren't told that in the first place is because it wasn't a concept in the first place. It only became an explanation for soon going long when it actually was going long and people were giving up. You know, "God is giving us more time...rejoice!"
Paul was, for whatever reasons, not clear in his explanations or reasons given. The problem is Paul's but as is typical, those who don't get what he means are called ignorant and unstable in their search for what he means , do it all the time in other scriptures and will end up being destroyed.
Just as those who noticed Jesus had not returned "soon" or "quickly" are condemned as scoffers in previous verses, so continuing they are called names because admittedly Paul is hard to understand at times on these things!
The real problem is first that Paul was hard to understand at times and secondly, Jesus coming soon was going way long and some wondered about that which would be normal and ok to wonder openly about. But it actually wasn't allowed. To doubt, in church, and express it is to threaten the message of the church. We know how that goes.
These obvious realities are not deserving of the author of Peter's wrath. (The author is not really Peter the disciple or Apostle, but an author writing later, when time had gone long, in his name what he thinks Peter would say. The polite term is "pseudepigrapha". The not so polite term is "forgery")
So whatever Paul's intent was in explaining something , his "hard to understand" is his fault and not that of those that didn't get his drift. There is no evidence either that he clarified the issues to anyone's satisfaction.
Clarification:
Paul evidently wrote about topics hard to understand as well as , at times, lacking the ability to make them more easily understood. But yet those who questioned it were condemned for "not getting it" Endeavoring to explain the hard to understand or even inexplicable, such as the concept of the Trinity and why three "persons" aren't really three gods, can cause no end of trouble, division and doubt. The theological hoops one has to jump through on that one are truly a circus act.
Anonymous said...
If women want equality, why don't they share the cost of a date? For that matter, why don't they ask the man out, and pay the full cost themselves? I like the idea of being chauffeured in a car, with my date paying for the meal and entertainment. They need to be consistent rather than having it both ways.
September 4, 2020 at 3:16 PM"
I can see that you've never been on a date and you'll remain single all your life!
"...but if you are a "closet" gay male, you might be able to pull it off..."
Que Beavis & Butthead laugh.
oooook, so a non-believer is going to correct The Church......that's rich.
Anonymous said...
oooook, so a non-believer is going to correct The Church......that's rich.
If you go by history, that's generally the only way churches end up having to listen. Members don't get to bring such realities to their attention if they wish to not be dis-membered.
Going along to get along does not correct mistaken notions.
6.14 AM
Ah, the conformist. Never make waves, go along to get along. No doubt you are hen pecked by your wife, and your church's good Borg drone. Yes, you get along, but alas your life is not your own.
10:26am Look in the mirror, that's why you're so lonely and will remain single!
I could make the observation that the "converted" men in the Bible also don't compare to many of the unconverted men who are allowed to speak and lord it over the congregations of today, so maybe in the interest of removing any possibility of an unconverted person ever being allowed to speak, all speakers should be removed from the podium. That makes about as much sense as instituting a unilateral ban on just one group of people(women) in the interest of preventing those who aren't converted from ever possibly speaking.
I understand that deciphering what Paul is trying to say at times is tricky, and his writings have caused all sorts of debate and confusion among those of the Christian faith, which perhaps is reason that extreme caution should be exercised when evaluating his writings and isolated Pauline comments should not be used to establish congregational policy without weighing other passages that might also shed light on a contested or unclear passage, such as 1Corinthians 14:34-35, or 1Timothy 2:11-12.
Entire articles and books have been written in weighing and trying to put these passages into contextual and historical perspective as well as trying to establish precise meanings of some of the Greek words used. For instance, the KJV and NKJV translate the Greek word hésuchia in the 1Timothy passage as silence, which in English means the complete absence of sound. But other translations have used the word quietness, which does not necessarily imply complete absence of speech, but instead a calm and cooperative demeanor. The word studies section of Bible hub under this word has this to say... "Cognate: 2271 hēsyxía (from hēsyxos, "quiet, stillness") – quietness, implying calm; for the believer, 2271 (hēsyxía) is used of their God-produced calm which includes an inner tranquility that supports appropriate action. This term does not mean speechlessness, which is more directly indicated by 4602 (sigḗ) (J. Thayer). See 2272 (hēsyxios)" You could also look at the Greek word authentein, which is rendered in the KJV as "to usurp authority" and in the NKJV as "have authority", but this word is not the usual word used to denote the exercise of authority as spoken of in other passages such as Matthew 20:25, where the disciples are warned by Jesus that they are not to katakurieuo, which is to lord over or exercise decisive control over someone else. The word authentein in 1Timothy 2:12 is only used once in the entire New Testament, and carries a flavor of domination or violent mastery. As Thayer's Greek Lexicon states, "according to earlier usage, one who with his own hand kills either others or himself."
These are just a couple of examples that could be brought up in studying these passages, and doesn't even begin to touch possible historical context, or what specifically might have been happening within the congregation to prompt Paul to use the language he did. It also doesn't go into the fact that these scriptures have historically been taken out of the context of the surrounding passages by the church, read in isolation and linked with each other to form unilateral policy, while other passages that exemplify women engaging in some of the very activities these passages on the surface seem to prohibit are ignored or explained away.
Concerned Sister
Anon 10:26 ????
11.43 AM
People divorce to escape the type of marriage that you propose. And often at great financial cost.
Bob disproves HWA Disproves the Bible?
In Bob's weekly sermon, Bob wanders about and at one time has to skip a point because he seems to have mixed up his wad of papers. In part of his spiel, Bob refers to the old booklet, The Proof of the Bible. This HWA plagiarism of an SDA work was discontinued due to an error, described in the article, HWA disproves the Bible, and covered in a Good News article by Dr Hoeh. Well, unless I misunderstood, Bob refutes the disproof; in short, what I heard him say was that the prophecy was about a different Tyre, so HWA's rewritten booklet was, in Bob's view, correct after all...
3:19pm blame divorce for the reason that no woman in her right mind would ever want you. You've shown your ignorance toward women. It's no wonder you're single!
A friend and I fell into conversation recently about the growing number of women running for office in recent years. For a while he was department head, then an assistant dean, then acting dean. He worked with both male and female administrators over a period of years. I stayed out of administration, but naturally interacted with administrators on a variety of projects. I see no general difference in performance between the genders. Most were at least reasonably good at their jobs, a few were dismal, and some were were extremely good. But they varied individually, not by the number of X and Y chromosomes they carried. As far as this blog is concerned, you can see how enlightening Concerned Sister's contributions are. We would be impoverished if her voice were denied .
Anyway, my friend and I agreed we were pleased to see so many females running for office at local, state, and national levels--not because women deserve a chance after being kept out so long, though that may be true. And not because women are automatically better. The point is, we should keep the pool we select from as large as possible.
I am commenting from a pragmatic point of view, since I am secular and have no credentials for recommending church policy. This thread is about gender, but it should go without saying that it is also a smart idea not to exclude members of particular racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, either.
Seeing all the female heads of state around the world over the decades I’ve come to the conclusion that women can be no less a cock up in making effed up decisions as the men. An extra X doesn’t make them any more wiser or godly than the men who have a single X and Y in their DNA make up. Gender like color means nada.
Post a Comment