Christ's Law

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 10:24 . . Nobody should seek only his own good, but also the good of others.

That's not saying it's wrong to seek your own good; just wrong to seek it at the
expense of another's good; viz: selfish ambition might be an acceptable modus
operandi in professional sports, politics, and big business; but it's totally
unacceptable in one's association with fellow believers for whom Christ died.

And there's nothing new in that; I mean after all; it's just another way of
expressing the so-called golden rule; which states: "All things whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matt 7:12)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 10:25-26 . . Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions
of conscience, for the earth is The Lord's, and everything in it.

Seeing as how God owns everything in existence, and answers to no one how He
goes about managing it; then what He says goes because nobody can stop Him
from making and/or enforcing whatever rules He wishes: not because He's a big
bully, but because it is his sovereign right to dominate the cosmos.

Whether God's rules are loving, moral, just, and/or right and wise is irrelevant. It's
as futile to criticize lightning for being so bright, and thunder for being so loud, as it
is to criticize God's rules because no matter how much people complain about
thunder and lightning; there is nothing they can do to get them exterminated.

One of the Greek words translated "lord" in the New Testament is despotes (des
pot'-ace) from which we get our English word despot; defined by Webster's as a
ruler with absolute power and authority.

Anway: a percentage of the meat sold by vendors in Corinth was either blessed by,
or dedicated to, pagan deities. Paul instructed his friends to avoid asking which was
which since it doesn't matter to God if the foods Christians ingest are religiously
tainted without their knowledge: and since it's The Lord's earth, then if He says it's
okay; then it's okay; but again, only if we're unaware of the meat's religious
significance.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 10:27-29 . . If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat
whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone
says to you "This has been offered in sacrifice" then do not eat it, both for the sake
of the man who told you and for conscience' sake-- the other man's conscience, I
mean, not yours.

If we go ahead and dine in someone's home knowing in advance the food is either
dedicated to, or blessed by, a pagan deity, or that when they say grace around the
table it will be to a god other than our own, or to a sacred personage that we do
not accept; then our host is quite possibly going to come to the conclusion that his
religion is just as valid as ours if we don't decline.

But please, when declining; be kind, gentle, thoughtful, tactful, and diplomatic
about it, i.e. considerate of the other person's feelings about their religion just as
we wish for them to be considerate of ours; especially here in the USA where
religious tolerance is normally regarded as good manners, i.e. civil.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 10:31 . . So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the
glory of God.

One of the meanings of the Greek word for glory is "honor" which in this case can
be defined as conducting one's self in a manner that's thoughtful of the principles
and moral values of someone admired and/or held in high esteem; for example:

"Be followers of God, as beloved children." (Eph 5:1)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 10:32-33 . . Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor
to the church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own
profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

The main idea here is courtesy with respect to cultural differences, viz: tolerance;
roughly defined as sympathy or indulgence for beliefs, practices, and/or life styles
differing from, or conflicting with, one's own.

No doubt a whole Sunday-morning sermon could be devoted to that passage in
regard to how people are turned off to the gospel by the thoughtless ways they're
treated by someone reputed to be a Christian.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:1 . . Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

In the Catholic religion, a "saint" is a role model for others. Well, 1Cor 11:1 lists an
exceptional model for everyone regardless of their age, race, gender, and/or
religious affiliation.

Christ is very famous 'round the world for exemplifying the virtues of kindness,
loyalty, forgiveness, lenience, and generosity.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:3 . . But 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.

It never seems to fail that somebody will actually attempt to refute Paul's
statement by quoting another of his own statements.

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were
baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor
Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal
3:26-28)

(chuckle) Paul pitted against Paul; the clash of the titans, only in this event, both
titans are one and the same titan. Yes, both genders are one in Christ; but then
Jesus and God are one also, yet there is a hierarchy in the Divinity because "the
head of Christ is God"
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:4-5a . . Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered
disrespects his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head
uncovered disrespects her head

That's a little tricky seeing as how the word "head" can refer to a skull and/or a
superior; so to clarify this a bit, I'm going to revise some of the above a little.

"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disrespects Christ. And
every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disrespects men."

Some of the world's women have made disrespecting men their life's work; and
nothing makes them happier than finding ways to chafe one. When they become a
Christian, it's imperative they give up that particular ambition.

This issue isn't really a gender issue, it's a progenitor issue.

The woman wasn't made directly from the dust of the ground like the man was. She
was constructed with material taken from the man's body; which makes him every
woman's father. So that when women disrespect men, they are actually
disrespecting their paternal ancestor; which is a shameful thing to do in any
culture; not just the Christian religion.

Christian women aren't required to cover their hair all the time; only whenever they
pray and/or prophesy; especially in the presence of men.

No doubt this is very disagreeable with a certain number of Christian women whose
heart's ambition is to assert their independence and demand equality. Well, if they
don't want to cover their hair when praying and/or prophesying out of respect for
men, then they should at least woman-up and do it out of respect for Christ's
feelings about it; after all, he's supposed to be every Christian woman's lord and
master. In other words; this is more a test of one's loyalty than a test of their
politics.

● John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

● John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who
loves me.

● John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who does
not love me will not obey my teaching.

● John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do what I command you.

NOTE: According to 1Cor 14:37 and 1Thess 4:1-2, the apostles' doctrine is Christ's
doctrine; it's a domino effect all the way to the top.

● Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you;
rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.

NOTE: It was a woman who first joined forces with the Serpent to bring about the
destruction of her source of existence; so I think we should take that event into
consideration relative to this particular commandment. (Gen 3:1-6)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:5b-6a . . If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair
cut off;

It's tempting to construe these rules as demeaning to women; but we're getting at
something fundamental here that goes all the way back to the first few chapters of
Genesis.

Women, by nature, are far more alluring than men. And that's okay @ home and/or
out in the world where they're allowed to pour on the glam and look amazing. But
in the presence of God, they ought to dull their shine a bit due to Adam's
supremacy in the grand scheme of things which, in the long run, professes a
Christian woman's belief in intelligent design. (The principle underlying this rule is
quite a bit different than the reasons why conscientious Muslim women wear
hijabs.)

● 1Cor 11:6b . . If it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off,
she should cover her head.

If Christian women would be somewhat embarrassed to show up in church with a
man's haircut, then they have only one other option; and that's to show up in
church with a women's. But in order to retain their femininity in the presence of
God; they are simply going to have to tone their allure down a bit by obscuring their
hair with something or heaven will have no choice but to assume the worst about them.

NOTE: Christianity's gender hierarchy is based upon primogeniture, i.e. the man
was created before the woman; plus she was constructed from the man and for the
man; and thus owes her existence to a man; and her role is a supporting role
rather than a starring role. These rules are no doubt unacceptable to modern
feminists, but if we attempt to appease their discontent we'll end up disappointing
our superior in Heaven.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:7-10 . . A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and
glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from
woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for
man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a token
of authority on her head.

There's probably as much disagreement about the identity of the angels in that
passage as there is about the sons of God in the 6th chapter of Genesis. Well;
whoever these angels are, or whatever they are, they're apparently indignant when
they see women in church acting as though they're equals with men in the
presence of God.

Christians have simply got to come to grips with the fact that women will never be
equal to men in the divine order of things. No, they will always be daddy's little girl.
Ergo: women aren't from Venus after all; no, they're actually the daughters of Mars
(so to speak).

POSIT: Paul meant that hair coverings are optional when he said: "But if any man
seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God"
(1Cor 11:16)

REPLY: That is yet another example of people refuting Paul by quoting Paul.

The "custom" he's talking about is women praying and or prophesying bare-headed.
Apparently the Jews' synagogues, and all the rest of the Christian churches in the
Roman world required their women to attend with something on their heads to
obscure their hair. Since that was so, then why ever would the Corinthian Christians
think that their women were somehow exempt?

"Judge in yourselves: is it proper that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" (1Cor
11:13)

The answer of course is NO it isn't proper-- it's insolent, inappropriate, and
disrespectful; plus it is conduct unbecoming for women professing to revere Christ's
right to tell his followers how to be a Christian.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:27-30 . .Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A
man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and
drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a
number of you have fallen asleep.

The Greek word for "unworthy" basically means: irreverently; which Webster's
defines as: lacking proper respect or seriousness. In other words "sacrilege" which
is gross irreverence toward a hallowed person, place, or thing.

"sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" is very similar language to 1Cor
6:18, which states: The immoral man sins against his own body. There, as here,
we're not talking about suicide and/or homicide; were talking about desecration;
which Webster's defines as: to violate the sanctity of, to profane-- viz: to treat with
disrespect, i.e. irreverently and/or outrageously.

People sin during the Lord's supper when they fail to take it seriously that the
elements represent his body-- not his so-called glorified body; but the one that was
crucified; viz; his disfigured, bloodied body.

What do you suppose went on during those three hours of thick darkness around
the cross? (Matt 27:45) Well; the abuse that the Romans inflicted on Christ was
merely a warm up for the main event. When the darkness came; that's when God
stepped into the ring; and the gloves came off. When the darkness lifted, people
saw a Jesus so beaten and bloodied beyond recognition that they could scarcely tell
he was the same man.

● Isa 52:14 . .There were many who were appalled at him-- his appearance was so
disfigured beyond that of any man, and his form marred beyond human likeness.

● Isa 53:10 . . Jehovah was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief

I have to wonder how ever a father could do something like that to his own son;
especially for a world that wouldn't even appreciate that the injuries God inflicted
upon His own son were for their benefit.

"A man ought to examine himself" is an imperative to make double sure that one's
heart is in the right place when consuming the elements (a.k.a. species). Some
people gulp them down as if they were nothing more than a snack of hot wings and
cold beer during a Super Bowl game instead of a sacred reminder of what God's son
endured to ransom their souls from a second death in the lake of brimstone
depicted at Rev 20:11-15. Those people have to expect that a very indignant father
is going to come down on them for that-- maybe not with sickness, maybe not with
death, and maybe not right away; but eventually with something; and really, who
can blame Him?

NOTE: Observance of the Lord's supper isn't a mandatory requirement; so if you
are a bit nervous about going about it in the wrong way, then don't take chances;
play it safe and refrain.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:33-34 . . My brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for each
other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together
it may not result in judgment.

The command doesn't frown upon things like church banquets, men's' breakfasts,
ladies' luncheons, and/or potlucks per se. It's addressing a lack of congregational
unity. Here's some comments leading up to that verse.

● 1Cor 11:17-22 . . Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you
come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come
together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I
believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved
may be recognized among you.

. . .Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat The Lord's
Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is
hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or
do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I
say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

Their lack of courtesy and unity during church functions was nothing short of
hypocrisy seeing as how The Lord's supper speaks of sacrifice rather than
selfishness, elitism, and hoarding. In other words; seeing as how Christians all
share in Christ's blood equally-- and deserve Hell equally --then everyone should be
given equal treatment at church regardless of age, gender, skin color, intelligence,
income level, nationality, what side of the tracks they live on, or social status.

None of Christ's body parts are untouchable as if Christianity is a caste system; nor
are any expendable. God forbid that there should be some sort of value system in a
gathering of people for whom Christ suffered and died equally for each one. That
just wouldn't be right: it would be an insult to the principles underlying The Lord's
supper.

● Matt 26:27 . . Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying:
Drink from it, all of you.

If Christians are all drinking from the same cup, then they should all be, at the very
least, eating the same food and not be overly concerned about where they sit
and/or who they sit next to and/or who they're seen with. And they should also
make double sure that everyone gets enough to eat and that no one gets left out
and nobody gets more than his fair share. And they should all sit down together at
the same time. I just hate it when people don't wait for each other. Some get back
to the table and start in gulping, slurping, clattering, and clanking while others from
their table are still in line.

And they should also take into consideration the possibility that a number of their
congregation are in assistance programs like TANF and SNAP. In other words; don't
just bring enough food from home for yourself; but, if you're able, bring enough for
those among you who can't bring anything at all. And for heaven's sake, don't bring
a side dish of gourmet food along just for yourself. Leave your special gourmet stuff
at home. There's just no excuse for flaunting your "sophistication" around church
thus giving everyone the impression that everyone else's tastes are below yours.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 12:24-27 . . God has combined the members of the body and has given
greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no schism in the
body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part
suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

In the beginning, Man was made in the image and likeness of God, which is a
kinship with Divinity that makes all of us equals on the human plane. It's likely
because of this equality that the Golden Rule is so appropriate.

In other words: the Golden Rule gives your fellow man the respect and dignity that
the image and likeness of God deserves. I believe the very same principle applies to
fellow members in the body of Christ.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:1a . . Pursue charity

The Greek noun for "charity" in that command is agape (ag-ah'-pay) which, in most
cases, is a very easy kind of love to practice. Though agape may, or may not,
include the sentiments of fondness and/or affection like the Greek word phileo (fil-
eh'-o), it always exemplifies benevolence; defined by Webster's as the disposition
to do good, i.e. kindness, consideration, generosity, courtesy, lenience, tolerance,
patience, sympathy, assistance, civility, friendliness, etc.

Agape love does no harm to its neighbor. (Rom 13:10)

In a nutshell, agape love allows us to be nice to people without particularly liking
them.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:1b . . eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

This particular prophecy genre is different than prognostication. This relates to
inspirational speakers.

"Everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, their
encouragement, and their comfort." (1Cor 14:3)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:13 . . anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret
what he says.

If Acts 2:1-12 is the model; then a genuine Spirit-endowed tongue should be an
honest to gosh real-life language instead of incoherent blabber that's intelligible to
no one, not even the speaker.

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under
heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment,
because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

. . . Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking
Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?
Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia,
Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene;
visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-- we
hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"

Mozart composed some amazing music; but had he not arranged the components
sensibly, it would likely grate on people's nerves instead of entertaining them; sort
of like when an orchestra verifies the pitch of its instruments just prior to a
performance. The discordant din that the orchestra makes is a cacophony instead of
a rhapsody.

"Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how
will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the
notes?" (1Cor 14:7)

Modern tonguers typically don't compose anything pleasant to the ear. At least if
they would chirp like birds their speech would be a discernible song instead of an
unintelligible warble.

I was informed by a Charismatic friend that he prayed in a tongue because he
couldn't express his deepest feelings any other way. Mind you this was an American
adult of almost fifty years old; educated in America and spoke, wrote, and read
English-- his native language his entire life. So I asked him how it is that his
command of the English was so poor that he could only express his thoughts in a
language that not even he himself could either identify or understand?

"If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do?
I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my
spirit, but I will also sing with my mind." (1Cor 14:13-15)

In other words: there are Christians out and about blabbering incoherently because
they choose to, rather than because they have to. With just a simple act of their
own will they could easily switch to something composed with real words.

Why on earth would a grown-up prefer incoherent blabbering? Isn't that the way
small children communicate? Well, I can excuse small children because they're
uneducated. But shouldn't supposed educated adults be just a bit more mature with
their language and grammar than small children?

The true gift of tongues is very handy for communicating with foreigners. But in our
day and age, Charismatics typically don't communicate with anybody, either foreign
or domestic . As a result, Charismatics are looked upon with the same disdain as
the kooks that hurl themselves on the floor, faint, scream, writhe, shout, and dance
with rattlesnakes.

Well; not too many sensible people care to accommodate kooks, so if you're serious
about influencing people for Christ, I highly recommend sticking to an intelligible
language. Here in my country, English is a good choice because most people can
understand it without requiring the services of a translator.

And for heaven's sake, please do not allow yourself to be drawn to participating in a
tongues meeting.

"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some
who do not understand, or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are
out of your mind?" (1Cor 14:23)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:22a . .Tongues are for a sign

The sign isn't intended for the benefit of believers, but rather, for non-believers.

"Not to them that believe, but to them that believe not." (1Cor 14:22b)

The purpose of any tongue is communication.

"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what
you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air." (1Cor 14:9)

So if a tonguer is speaking a language nobody understands, they've actually
created a barrier to communication; viz: a regression to the tower of Babel; and
you can see for yourself how destructive that was to unity (Gen 11:1-9). Webster's
defines "regression" as: movement backward to a previous, and especially worse or
more primitive state or condition; viz: backwards thinking.

Since tongues are for the benefit of unbelievers, then it's de facto that a tongue
should be a valid language that the unbeliever himself speaks and understands (cf.
Acts 2:4-11). Somebody who exercises a tongue for any other reason has missed
the point; and they're behaving like a little kid with a toy.

"Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your
thinking be adults." (1Cor 14:20)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:27-28 . . If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at
the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no
interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to
God.

Tonguers (folks with the actual gift) are not permitted to speak all at the same time
like a mob of howling political protesters. One of the reasons why I get so annoyed
by talk shows like ABC's The View is because everyone talks all at once like a bunch of
undisciplined dogs barking and yapping in a kennel. And the way they interrupt
each other back and forth before the other can even finish a sentence is one of the
very things we teach children not to do. You'd think those supposedly mature adults
grew up without supervision the way they conduct themselves in a conversation.

NO! tonguers (folks with the actual gift) are to take turns; speaking one at a time,
rather than an entire congregation of tonguers barking and yapping like dogs in a
kennel whenever they "feel the Spirit" moving them. And if there's no one to
interpret, tonguers are not permitted to speak at all. If Christians the world over
followed those rules, it would put the charismatics out of business right quick.

FYI: These directives regulating the exercise of tongues in a church meeting were
written by the apostle Paul-- a duly authorized agent speaking on behalf of
Christianity's Christ.

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the
things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (1Cor 14:37)

Therefore, when Christians proceed to defy the rules regulating the exercise of
tongues, they are in shameful rebellion against the very lord and master of
Christianity; and yet, ironically, many tongue violators still have the chutzpah to
pass themselves off as the Lord's Spirit-filled followers. However; a follower can be
defined as someone who gets in step and/or falls in line rather than going off
reservation to do their own thing.

"Rebellion is as the sin of divination; and insubordination is as iniquity and
idolatry." (1Sam 15:23)

"If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do
not the truth." (1John 1:6)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:29-32 . .Two, or three, prophets should speak, and everyone else should
weigh carefully what is said. If a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down,
the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may
be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the
prophets.

Though God endows certain Spirit-selected people in church with the gift of
prophecy (1Cor 12:4-11) it is not He who endows them with the compulsion to talk
all at once and/or talk out of turn. Chaos prevention is their responsibility; not His,
no matter how inspired they might be, nor how important they think their
information is.

* Actual prophets channel God's thoughts; viz: they speak as the voice of God.
People with opinions don't speak as the voice of God at all; they speak as
themselves. True prophets are revelators; people with opinions are little more than
a nuisance; they muddy the waters and if not kept in check will quickly derail a
Sunday school class and drag it off onto perpetual debating that never gets to the
bottom of anything.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:34 . . Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed
to speak; but must be in submission (i.e. subordinate to the men)

It could be argued, with some merit, that this rule applies only to tongues and
prophecy; but Paul goes further with this rule in a letter to his friend Timothy.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first
formed, then Eve." (1Tim 2:11-13)

It's important to note that this is neither a gender issue nor an issue related to
competence; it's an issue related to primogeniture. For that reason it's an
insubordinate act of contempt for authority when Christian women lead Christian
men in a Christian congregation.

FAQ: Doesn't 1Cor 11:3-10 permit women to pray and/or prophecy just so long as
they cover their hair?

REPLY: There is a gender limit to that privilege. In other words: Christian woman
are not allowed to pray and/or prophecy in the hearing of a mixed congregation;
i.e. where Christian men are present.

FAQ: What about women like Anne Graham Lotz. Is she out of order?

REPLY: Though women aren't permitted to speak to a mixed-gender Christian
congregation, that doesn't preclude their speaking to a mixed-gender public forum,
or in the street; or in a coliseum, or in a stadium, or in a convention center, or on
radio and television.

The best place in church for women blessed with the Spirit's gift to teach for Christ
is in a women's group; and if a man should invade a women's group led by a Spirit
gifted woman; I think he should be asked to leave.

FAQ: What about Deborah in the Old Testament book of judges? Exactly how was
she an exception to the rule, if indeed she was?

REPLY: Things are quite a bit different now with Christ at the helm, i.e. Christ's
association with his church trumps Deborah's association with the Jews. I do not
recommend using her, or any other woman in the Bible, as an excuse to defy
Christ's edicts in matters pertaining to the governance of Christian congregations.

* Debbie was neither a priest nor a member of the Sanhedrin; her involvement in
the Jews' affairs was limited to her position as a judge, viz: the Temple's sacred
business was none of her business; that was strictly a man's world.

* Paul appealed to "the law" as the basis for 1Cor 14:34. Normally when Paul
speaks of the law he's referring to the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon
with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Exactly where in the covenant that women are forbidden to preach, or teach, or
usurp authority over men in matters of religion, I don't know. However, it's quite
obvious that the covenant is very sexist, i.e. women are not permitted in either the
priesthood or the Sanhedrin.

NOTE: The law doesn't always speak explicitly about certain things. Sometimes the
law's rules and procedures imply principles that we call "the spirit of the law".
Whereas anybody can parrot the law, not just anyone is able to discern the spirit of
the law. (cf. Neh 8:1-8)
_