Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Covering Discussion

The Don Martin - Mark J. Ward Discussion on

I Corinthians 11:1-16

Ward's Tenth Article

This is the next article Mark J. Ward writes under the Subject line: Re:I Corinthians 11:1-16...

Subject:
Re: I Corinthians 11:1-16
Date:
Sun, 02 Feb 2003 11:57:17 -0500
From:
"Mark J. Ward" <markjward@darientel.net>
To:
mars-list@mtsu.edu, dmartin5@concentric.net, markjward@darientel.net

Mark J. Ward to Don Martin and the listers:

I will try to keep this post very simple and to the point (tho I do take

the liberty to quote Don in a few paras here, to get his writing before
the readership at a few critical instances, as some are NOT on Digest
and can't compare as easily as others).

In his last post, my good brother Don Martin remarked:

Mark, to answer "a." would be to ignore the context and milieu. I do
not believe this whole matter would be so confusing to you if you were
not dedicated to binding the covering on all women today. May I gently
say that I believe it is you who has the difficulty, not I. Again,
Acts 20: 7 is proof that if you and I considered the subjects I
Corinthians 11: 3-16 the way we do in Acts 20: 7, we would be in
agreement on I Corinthians 11 as well. The mentioned people in Acts 20:

7 were usual (the church at Troas), while the mentioned people in I
Corinthians 11 were unusual. We can and must duplicate Acts 20: 7, but
we cannot have "praying and prophesying" women today doing what those
women were obviously doing. Besides, the veil does not mean to us what
it did to those people.

I close this post by again repeating: I believe that if we had "praying

or prophesying women" today and if the covering meant the same to us,
they would have to be covered. However, the two requisite conditions
satisfying the conditional particle "if" are not in place. It is just
this simple. Mark must make the "praying" natural and the "prophesying"
only uninspired teaching and then must bind a matter that was emblematic

of subjugation to them but not to us (the head covering) on all women
today to arrive at his position. I do not question the motives of Mark,

just his conclusions and position, which I decidedly view as untenable.

Mark replies:
Don misunderstands that he really has a "special assembly" or "unusual"
situation (tho he doesn't want to admit it for a second <g>) in Acts
20:7 'cause an inspired apostle did the preaching (special subject in
the assembly at Troas, Don, just like your asserted special subjects,
praying and/or prophesying men/women in an assembly with uninspired
men/women in the assemblies at Corinth)...we don't have that
today...therefore (according to Don's reasoning, to be consistent, mind
you) we shouldn't be able to use Acts 20:7 for authority or
applicability today!!!

Don had written, "We can and must duplicate Acts 20: 7, but we cannot
have "praying and prophesying" women today doing what those women were
obviously doing." Don we CANNOT duplicate an assembly with an inspired
apostle (inspired only prophesying man??? <g>) in it today!!! What Don
does is put too much emphasis on the fact there were inspired folks at
Corinth and leaves OFF the instruction as being applicable to uninspired

folks due to his straining to put miraculous ONLY on praying, for
example! Don asserts we CAN duplicate what took place in the assembly
with the inspired apostle in it (the one in Acts 20:7, concerning the
Lord's Supper specifically <g>) but assumes we CANNOT duplicate what
took place in the assembly at Corinth (concerning "every man" and "every

woman" ~"praying"~, for example)!!! That's my point exactly. Proper
discernment is key here, brother Don. Just because we have uninspired
folks ONLY in our assemblies today doesn't negate EITHER Acts 20:7 OR I
Corinthians 11 instruction for us (or the rest of most of the NT, for
that matter <g>). Don doesn't understand, doesn't recognize his own
reasoning applied to another subject, but we hope he will, in time.
Please carefully read on...

Don, you have NOT represented my position accurately. I love you and
want you to treat/represent the position I hold to be God's truth as
carefully as I am trying to treat/represent yours. (Since you have never

told me what all you believe on the subject, I am trying not to make any

assumptions about your position. You have not even gotten to asking me
your questions yet, good brother <g>!!!) Please note, specifically, one
area wherein you mis-teach others on this list (more than once now)
concerning my position...Thanks, Don!

Don had written:
... It is just this simple. Mark must make the "praying" natural and
the "prophesying" only uninspired teaching and then must bind a matter
that was emblematic of subjugation to them but not to us (the head
covering) on all women today to arrive at his position.

Mark responds:

Just as I used the "teachers of good things" having a meaning that would

INCLUDE uninspired AND inspired teachers of good things and just as I
used "a prophet is not without honor in his own country" to having the
application whether the prophet was uninspired OR inspired, I have
stressed that I believe the passage is applicable for uninspired OR
inspired "praying or prophesying". Yet, you wrote, in part, "Mark must
make the "praying" natural and the "prophesying" ONLY INSPIRED (emp
mine, mjw) teaching..." Don, please correct this brother! We are BOTH
human and subject to writing something in haste without praying or
proofing over it. Maybe such is the case (I have noted the misspelling
of "covering" with "coving" a few times, Don..slow down brother???)??? I

will NOT assign motive problems here, dear readers, to my good brother
and friend Don Martin. He seeks to teach and stand on the truth of God's

word just as much as I do, I am truly confident of this!!!

Also, to emphasize this misunderstanding on the part of my brother Don,
please note what Don wrote earlier ALONG THIS SAME LINE, very recently:
*********************
Don wrote:
Mark has sought to reduce "praying" to natural praying and "prophesying"

to natural or uninspired teaching. Of course, we do not know when Mark
binds the "covering" (prayer or teaching matters) or what Mark's idea of

the covering is.

Mark here:
And wherein I YESTERDAY, in my post, brought this to my good brother
Don's attention when I wrote:

Mark replies with love:
The above is NOT altogether accurate. Don "begs the question" here (in
that he assumes the thing that is yet unproven: namely, that "praying",
"pray", and "prophesying" in this text are miraculous ONLY). In reality,

praying, for example, would have to ~start out as being inspired and
uninspired~ for either of us to be "reducing" its definition, Don.
Regarding these actions being "inspired/miraculous ONLY", such is NOT
axiomatic, tho' Don asserts such. Don, how can we KNOW and BE SURE???

[***Mark jumping in for emphasis here, Don please note the following,
please***] I believe I have previously made it clear that my view is
INCLUSIVE of both INSPIRED & UNINSPIRED "praying or prophesying".
Therefore, I don't "reduce" it, like Don asserts above. (from MARS-List
Digest 3856, February 1, 2003)
*******************************
Mark here again:

What say ye, brother Don? I love brother Don so much, but cannot let
such a misrepresentation of what I teach herein slide by. I hope that he

would hold me to the same standard.

In a future post, Lord willing, I will begin to deal with Don's "all Bs"

answers to verse 7 (inspired men/women ONLY???) and show more weaknesses

(in my estimation) of his incorrect understanding of the passage. Then,
we will move on to Q5 from me, the good Lord willing, and begin to
entertain Don's questions of me on this good study. But, we need to
point out how Don reasons (incorrectly and at other times correctly, in
my estimation) as we go down the text together (and we're only down to
verse 7 <g>). That's how we might come to agreement and that's how we
can press the other wherein we believe the conclusions are incorrect

Also, we need to note that Don has not adequately dealt with teaching us

why it would be more important for inspired men/women to be covered than

uninspired at times the church would be engaging in "praying or
prophesying", for example...and then, why only the ONE PERSON who would
be doing the LEADING (as Don now confirms has been his "stated position"

all along <g>) would be the ONLY ONE that had to obey the instruction of

I Cor 11 at that specific time! Weren't the others "praying" brother
Don? If the inspired person, for example, was going to get up and lead
the church in prayer, and said LET US PRAY, weren't they ALL ~praying~
??? (NOTE: the careful reader and Don will certainly note that I am
asking this concerning the time that the very ~praying~ that he believes

is SPECIAL/MIRACULOUS ONLY is occuring)?

Further, Don had written, " Besides, the veil does not mean to us what
it did to those people." We are STILL WAITING on the inspired verse,
Don, that has anything to do in I Cor 11 with your assertions along this

line! Where did Paul appeal to "cultural practices" Don, in giving the
God-given reasons for every man/woman to be uncovered/covered when
"praying or prophesying"? In fact, we have noted wherein Paul was
probably teaching something that was CONTRARY TO the "custom of the
day". The burden of proof is on Don's shoulders to prove his statement,
"Besides, the veil does not mean to us what it did to those people." ~as

being relevant with regards to OUR obligations to obey I Cor. 11~. Paul
didn't appeal to custom in giving that instruction!

God bless us all and may we continue with loving spirits, open minds,
and I certainly want to change, Don, if I be wrong on this. I want to
make mention and note my recognition of your kind words in the midst of
pressing a point towards me, Don, and I appreciate your
loving-kindnesses in this regard. Thanks for your patience.

In Christian love,
Mark J. Ward
The Religious Instructor
http://www.religiousinstructor.com
The Golden Isles church of Christ
http://www.religiousinstructor.com/church

********
NOTE THE CORRECTION BELOW>>>SENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ABOVE POST WAS SENT...WE AGAIN APOLOGIZE TO DON MARTIN AND THE READERS FOR THIS MISTAKE

***********
Subject:
Re: I Corinthians 11:1-16
Date:
Sun, 02 Feb 2003 12:09:14 -0500
From:
"Mark J. Ward" <markjward@darientel.net>
To:
mars-list@mtsu.edu, dmartin5@concentric.net, markjward@darientel.net

Mark J. Ward, here, to Don Martin and the list,

CORRECTION/ CORRECTION/CORRECTION

Hear ye, Hear ye, Hear ye.....

I need to correct a MISTAKE that I made while trying to get brother Don
Martin to correct what I believe is a mistake (how about that???)

Don, and the listers, please forgive, me this error..it was purely
unintentional.

******************************
I wrote (in part):

Yet, you wrote, in part, "Mark must make the "praying" natural and the
prophesying" ONLY INSPIRED (emp mine, mjw) teaching..." Don, please
correct this brother!

*******************************

I should have written in quoting Don:

Yet, you wrote, in part, "Mark must make the "praying" natural and the
"prophesying" ONLY **UN**INSPIRED (emp mine, mjw) teaching..." Don,
please correct this brother!

*****************************

I apologize for my mistake. I copied and pasted the sentence (which is
accurate in another spot wherein I made the mistake in the very post I
sent, for which I am very glad) but in adding emphasis with ALL CAPS, in
the sentences above, I mis-typed.

Again, Don and the readership forgive me this wrong.

In Christian Love,
Mark J. Ward

(From MARS-List Digest 3860, February 2, 2003

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE NEXT ARTICLE

CLICK HERE TO GO BACK TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIS STUDY

[Editor’s Note: This is one of the most in-depth, comprehensive studies between two brethren on the issue of whether "the spiritual gifts view" of I Corinthians 11:1-16 is true, or whether God requires women today to cover their heads with an artifical covering whenever they pray. We hope all readers will continue to study all Bible topics with open minds, willing to conform to God's Truth. Thanks for reading! - Mark J. Ward markjward@yahoo.com ]

Email the Editor at markjward@yahoo.com