Inquiry, the member Tiffy

Apart from the many references in scripture to God, (who is a Spirit), being a 'Heavenly Father',, not I might add an earthly father. Jn.1:12-13. Earthly fathers are exclusively male. They procreated according to 'the will of the flesh' or 'Blood' or 'the will of man'.

God creates through none of these methods, yet God is Father of All and is pure Spirit, not flesh and blood. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor.15:50. To suggest that a Spirit God can be compared to a human MAN is blasphemous idolatry.

Can you cite a single human category which can completely describe God? No? Then why do you claim my statement erroneous?

Gender and sex are necessary for life to continue as God intended UPON EARTH. They are superfluous however IN HEAVEN. God has no need for them, and neither will we. Matt.22:30. Mk.12:25.

Jesus Christ was fully a man and also fully divine, when he walked the earth in his mortal state. He had to be mortal, how else could he die for the sins of the whole world, if not mortal.

Jesus Christ is now risen, ascended, glorified and IMMORTAL. He is GOD. He is in heaven. Gender is not relevant in heaven. Jesus Christ is no mere man. Jesus Christ was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Human concepts of sex and gender cannot describe Christ any more than they can describe God The Father or God The Holy Spirit. ALL THREE ARE ONE GOD, NOT THREE GODS, one of them male.

______________________________________________

Correct me if I am wrong but the above statements of mine seem self explanatorily, doctrinally, orthodox.

Jesus Christ was a man, not a woman. He was born a boy, not a girl. Had he been born a girl he could not have been the Messiah the Prophets predicted would appear, as their Savior and their King.

Had Christ been born a girl, he could not have been a King of the Jews or any other nation on earth. Had he been a girl, he could not have been even head of his own family, let alone head of the church. MEN would have stopped 'her', prevented 'her', opposed 'her', denounced 'her', ignored 'her', subjugated 'her', discounted 'her' as irrelevant, and the atonement would NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE, and the whole world would still all remain in our sins. Jesus Christ had a difficult time enough convincing men when he was a man himself, had he been incarnated as a woman, his task would have been utterly impossible and 'she' would have failed to save mankind.

So it is quite impossible that God could have become a human female, if God was to successfully save mankind. (God being the ONLY SAVIOUR) Isa.43:1-3; Isa.43:11.

Whatever the formularies and the scriptures actually mean by attributing to God the title of "Heavenly Father", it does NOT mean that GOD the TRINITY is MASCULINE. Masculine is HUMAN. Feminine is HUMAN. God is NOT HUMAN.

GOD IS GOD and ONLY GOD is GOD. I AM is just I AM, . . . . . . not I AM a masculine spiritual TRINITY.

To claim such is a violation of scripture, a violation of all the formularies, a violation of The Tradition of the Anglican Church and a violation of Common Sense Sanity.

I claim I am innocent of the charges brought against me on the grounds that the charges are false. My statements do not refute that God is "Our Heavenly Father" They assert it strongly. What they refute is a simplistic, literal, pedantically idolatrous, interpretation of what it means to BE a "Heavenly Father".

 

'without body parts or passions' reminds us seriously that anthropomorphic understandings of God just will not pass muster.
No Anglican should be left with an understanding of God as the kind old man in the sky.​

Whilst I recognise that I have not 'The Anglican Badge' for reasons not related to Article 1, I do take the view that Article 1 strongly argues against the ascription of gender to the divine. The language of theology has most often, but not exclusively, utilised masculine terms, reflective of the roles of provision protection and patronage which we easily see as reflections of the divine nature, however masculine gender of God is not a dogma of the Church catholic and apostolic. Genesis Chapter 1 opens with the image of the Spirit of God Brooding over the waters at creation, and goes on to discuss humankind being made in the image and after the likeness of God - male and female he created them.

I know that we live in interesting times, and I have no doubt that a number of North Americans view with some concern proposals being discussed by the TEC in relation to the liturgy used by that Church. I believe that the four statements of Tiffy do stand up.

1. I do not see anything saying God is masculine, feminine or even, (God forbid), neuter.
2. No single human category or attribute can describe God. God is unique, holy, none like to Him, none beside Him, none before Him.
3. Human concepts of gender and sex are inapplicable to God as a Spirit.
4. Human concepts of sex and gender are even inapplicable now to Jesus Christ, (after the resurrection, ascension and Glorification of God's Only Son, Our Lord). 2 Cor.5:16-20.

​

The scripture supporting the fourth statement is helpful.

2 Corinthians 5:16-20
From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.​

Even though I personally do not fully accept the argument he makes in this point, I do take the point he makes, I also understand that in the limited parameters of our physicality we understand gender as part of our identity, I remain inconclusive as the the importance of gender in the life we are promised beyond the grave.

1 John 3:2
Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.​

I fully understand Tiffy's right and ability to speak for himself. I further understand that I have no mandate to speak for him, however I do feel compelled to speak of the truth. Truly conservative Anglicanism is deeply radical. The Spirit of Cranmer and the Anglican Divines was to seek to recover the authentic primitive traditions of the Church. I do not believe that Tiffy has spoken anything that suggests that the Anglican Badge should be stripped from him.

 

Unequivocally so. God is our "Heavenly Father" as clearly stated in the scripture by our Lord himself on numerous occasions. What is at issue is the question of whether a "Heavenly Father" is equivalent in any physically male attribute, to an earthly father. On that issue I am quite clear. I do not believe that God the Blessed Trinity is physically masculine and neither should you unless you wish to be considered a heretic. To split off The Father from the other two persons of The Trinity and then try to assign male gender to God, as if God The Father were a single physical human being, is Theologically profoundly problematic. You DO SEE the problem with that I suppose?

Definitely so. However, Jesus Christ ascended into heaven with a resurrected, immortal body. Whatever that immortal, resurrected body is, it is not synonymous with our mortal bodies, neither is it 'physically' the same as our bodies. Christ's body is a 'spiritual body'. 1 Cor.15:44. He is the first-fruits of them that slept. Unique, human and divine. Physical as demonstrated to his disciples, by eating and being touched. Spiritual as demonstrated to his disciples by materializing in a room with locked doors and vanishing from a fellowship meal at which he had physically broken bread.

Once again you are mistaken to try to divide up The Trinity and split off Christ so that you can apportion him a degree of human sexuality. God is a Trinity, you are trying to 'divide the substance', then hang a label of human gender applicable on earth, to a Person of The Triune Godhead, as if he were still an individual human being, as he was on earth.

Can you not see that assigning human gender to any member of The Trinity is Theologically problematic? We are allowed to think of Christ as a human being, even as a man, but that is now only sacramentally true. The reality is, Christ now no longer has a mortal human body, just as we will no longer have mortal human bodies in heaven. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. 1 Cor.15:50; 1 Cor.15:53-54; 1 Tim.6:16. Gender is irrelevant in heaven, there is no marriage, we are as angels. Matt.22:30; Mk.12:25.

I confirm that God is almighty, (in fact I think I have already posted the attributes if God, here. Almighty was not actually on the list but should have obviously been included. Sorry my mistake. Rev.1:8; 21:6; 22:13.

Being Almighty or Omnipotent however does not mean that God can do absolutely anything he chooses to do. Not at all, no. God for instance cannot make a square triangle, a triangular circle or a rectangular hexagon. Neither can God deny his own existence, lie or sin. 2 Tim.2:13; God is not a man. Num.23:19; 1 Sam15:29. Neither can God forget. Isa.43:25. God promises to 'not remember', that is not forgetfulness. God is not forgetful.

In the case of whether God chose to be incarnated as a man or as a woman, God obviously would not have chosen a course of action that God omnisciently knew would fail to achieve his objective. (God does not fail in anything God purposes to do), i.e. to save the world, not to judge it. Jn.12:47; Isa.46:10, 55:11.

The fact that God determined before time itself existed that The Second Person of the Trinity i.e. God, would be incarnated as a man is probably indicative of the possibility that God in omniscience knew that a woman would never have been allowed by sinful men to complete her mission, so it would have failed, and God does not fail in what God purposes, so the incarnation of God on Earth was necessarily male. The inevitability was (1) because of sin, and in particular sinful men, opposed to God, opposed even more so, had he been in the despised form of a woman. (2) the second person of The Trinity is the Son of God, as a human on Earth, naturally male, and evidently a recognizable covenant head. Rom.5:12-21; 1 Cor:15:22.

.

 

I thought I might just throw in the Catechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church #239 if it helps any one.

239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.


And this is from the Anglican Catechism from my local Diocese in New Zealand.


7. What do we learn about God?

God is eternal, earth maker, pain bearer, life giver; source of all that is and shall be; father and mother of us all. We learn that God is one, yet revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - a Holy Trinity.

 

The RC church gets it right on many issues. This seems to be one of them. Sanity prevails. As a Father or Mother, no one can compete with God.
.

 

Tiffy and others appear to be presenting non sequitors. The question isn’t “Is God a human male,” the question is “What is the significance of God’s and Christ’s self-revelation in scripture as Father and Son?” The scriptural usage of Father/Son seems to be pregnant with great significance. You should provide a concise answer to the Father/Son significance, without going on and on about how God or Christ aren’t human men.

 

The scriptures refer to God as "Our Heavenly Father". I have never denied that.

Perhaps you can point out exactly where in the "Formula of Holy Subscription", it stipulates necessary assent to the necessity of anything existing in the scriptures. Surely the only necessary agreement required for an Anglican is to accept Article 6 of The 39 Articles of Religion. The necessity of what exists in scripture, I contend, is known by God alone. We are required only to accept that it IS necessary, since it is from God. Were it not necessary, what would be the purpose of scripture?

Since I was never required under the terms of "The Formula of Holy Subscription" to give assent to any necessity for the existence of any term in scripture, neither has any other Anglican ever been required to do so, I can hardly be guilty of breaking an oath I was never required to swear.

The scriptures plainly and unequivocally refer to Christ as God's only Son. I have never denied this.

Again, I was not required under oath to give my assent to any necessity for the scripture saying what it plainly says. I therefore have broken no oath. If there is a necessity for scripture to have made a statement, then it is God that knows what that necessity must have been, not you or I. I simply affirm that it is there plainly for all to see, and we interpret its meaning, as The Holy Spirit reveals it to us.

If God alone shapes human cultures, then God is responsible for Islam and all other religions and cultures. The astonishing diversity of them and the injustices and inequalities they often embody indicate to me that they are not ordained by God but are devised by fallen man. I do not believe these can be products of the work of God. God has never decreed subjugation of one class by another or one sex by another or one race by another. God is not the author of injustice, prejudice, or abuse of power or authority.

Scripture reveals to us clearly that God worked within the Hebrew Tribes to build a Nation uniquely guided by God and covenanted to God. God's purpose was to prepare that nation to receive the promised Messiah, who would teach mankind the society and culture that God endorses. That culture has been called "The Kingdom of God" or "The Kingdom of Heaven" and is in fact the "fellowship of The Holy Spirit", "The Church of Jesus Christ". This is the culture which God has decreed for mankind, since the foundation of the world, and none other. This "Kingdom of God", can 'reside within' any human culture, enhancing and transforming it from within, until it reflects the glory of God in perfect freedom. This is the internationalism of The Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And:

The Second Adam is a Title of Christ not His Status.

status: a state of affairs; condition; standing; position; rank; importance in society or in any group; legal position or classification.

Christs Status is: God the Son, Firstborn, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Image of God, Creator, Blessed of God, Mediator, Prophet, Priest, King, Judge, Shepherd, Head of the Church, the true Light, The Foundation of the Church, The Way, the Truth, the Life, Incarnate.

title: an appellation of rank or distinction or formal designation;

Christs Titles are: Adam, the Second, Advocate, Alpha/Omega, Amen, Apostle of our Profession, Author and finisher of our faith, Beginning of the creation of God, Blessed and Holy Potentate, Captain of Salvation, Chief Corner Stone, Chief Shepherd, Dayspring, Desire of all nations, Emmanuel, Everlasting Fasther, Faithful Witness, First and last, God, Good Shepherd, Governor, Great High Priest, Head of the Church, Heir of all things, Holy One, Horn of Salvation, I Am, Jesus, Just One, King, Lamb, Lamb of God, Lion of tribe of Judah, Lord of All, Lord of Glory, Lord God Almighty, Lord our Righteousness, Mediator, Messenger of the Covenant, Messiah, Mighty One, Morning Star, Nazarene, Prince of Life, Prince of Peace, Prince of the kings of the earth, Prophet, Redeemer, Resurrection and life, Root of David, Root of Jesse, Saviour, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of the Blessed, Son of the Highest, Sun of Righteousness, Way, Truth and Life, Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Word, Word of God, Word of Life.


As you may see, some Titles are also statuses. The second Adam is not one of them, it is only a Title not a status.

The fact that Christ has as one of his Titles, 'The second Adam', does not imply that the risen and ascended Christ necessarily has identical gender to the first human Adam, any more than the other titles of Christ such as 'Chief Corner Stone' or 'Lion of the tribe of Judah' imply that the risen Christ is a 'Lump of Rock' or a big cat, 'King of the Jungle'.

.

 

If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why am I on trial?" Jn.18:23.
.

 

Providing answers to the 'Father / Son significance' was what the debate was actually about. 'Is God Male? TEC contemplates revising the Prayerbook again' . I am a member of The Church of England from birth and therefore not affected by what the TEC decide to have in their prayer book. My interest therefore is only in the concept of whether it is possible for human beings to understand God's purpose in matters that God has not actually chosen to plainly reveal it in scripture. However I have consistently stood by the position that:

(1) The Anglican church has traditionally accepted that the scriptures themselves validate the continued use of Father and Son, when referring to the First and second Persons of The Trinity.

(2) That assigning human gender notions to members of The Undivided Trinity, (as if individuals, as we ourselves), is theologically problematic, and therefore inappropriate.

The debate has centered around the inevitable incongruity of describing God using human reasoning and the impossibility of divining what God's actual gender might be.

If you think that it is possible to give a concise answer to the Father / Son significance, then perhaps you are the best person to do it.

I look forward with interest to a concise statement of your considered opinion concerning “What is the significance of God’s and Christ’s self-revelation in scripture as Father and Son?”, bearing in mind that your human reasoning is probably only as adept at defining God's reasons for doing or being anything, as that of any other fallible human being.

.

 

For what it's worth, this discussion has clarified the meaning of sacred genders to me. I struggled with explaining and defending the traditional belief, in my conversations with Tiffy. My own understanding of gender and the divine nature of the genders is becoming clearer, having read this discussion.

 

God seems to exercise creative power, in a sense, through separation (separated day and night, land and sea, chosen people and unchosen people, etc.). In the creative act that birthed humanity, He separated woman from man and made them in the image of Himself. It’s therefore natural to ask, What attributes of God does that image have, and is that “image” exactly the same between man and woman?

Some say that the capacity to reason is precisely the “image” men and women are given from God, and thus the image from God is given in equal measure to both man and woman. But we can say more than this from the scriptures from the fact that A. The scriptures are inspired and given down by God and B. That they teach us to refer to God as Father and Christ as Son. It is logically true, then, that we may draw the conclusion that human fathers and human sons, moreover human men, share certain attributes (given by God) with God that aren’t shared with women.

This plays itself out and is shown to be true throughout the scriptures: God the Father rules all of creation, there is no one higher, and the scriptures command fathers (husbands) to be likewise the heads of households; the firstborn Jesus the Son is the most precious and beloved object of affection for the Father and carries the full authority and full delegations from His father, and the scriptures tell us that human firstborn sons indeed are the most precious (see Abraham and Isaac, etc.) and carry the full authority and inheretances from the father (see Jacob and Essau).

I’ve read some of your commentary and it seems like you argue that these, let’s call them “transpositions”, are attributed to God/Christ from corrupt man, but I argue that they are attributes given to corrupt man from a perfect God. It’s a matter of the level of respect/dignity/authority you give to the scriptures. What you’ve done is declare the scriptures a corruption carried out by the man-made patriarchy. You’ve committed the double whammy of lowering the authority of the scriptures (to below your own judgment) and advocated for the violation of the God-ordained order of male authority over female. What would follow from such a teaching is the total destruction of the church (as we can see by the ever-quickening collapse of the Church of England) followed closely by the destruction of the family (as we can see by the ever-quickening increase of cohabitation and children born of unwed couples (greater than 50% of native whites in England!)).

So, I hope it’s somewhat clear why this oblique attack on the integrity of the scriptures, church, and God-given order must be handled with vigor and strength. More importantly, I hope you can at least see my view of the significance of the self-revealed Fatherhood and Sonship of God and Christ: the self-revelation is there to teach us something about the triune God and about ourselves; to give us and understanding of how things are to be ordered.

 

Actually my statement in no way contradicts the passage of scripture you have quoted. It only contradicts your own interpretation of what the passage means.

Notice I specifically refer to the risen and ascended Christ, not to Christ while he was a mortal man on earth. Notice also that the text you have quoted, (falsely implying that I have gone against it teaching), teaches that the risen and ascended Christ, became a life-giving spirit. In order to become something, one necessarily has to stop being whatever you previously were. Christ was previously a man, (He was of course also God, but that is another matter). Adam also was a man, so while Christ was alive on earth you are correct to deduce that the Second Adam, Christ, was in all human respects equivalent to The First Adam i.e. both men. That equivalence obviously ceased when Christ became a life giving spirit. You can't become something and also remain what you once were. That would be a violation of logic. Whilst Christ was in the natural he was equivalent to Adam, in his humanity. When Christ but after he became the spiritual he obviously was no longer the natural. Therefore Christ is unlike Adam, who like us remains in the natural, until resurrected at the last day.

So "just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven”, Far from this proving that my statement 'goes against what the text implies', it actually endorses and confirms it fully. It states clearly that "As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth". (Mortals are like Adam). and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. This clearly indicates that the man from heaven is not like the man from earth, i.e the first Adam, (as are all unregenerate human beings of whatever gender).

The good news is however that "though we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. But we must become something else, just as Christ became something else, (i.e. a life-giving spirit), before we can bear Christ's likeness.

I have previously explained to you that The Second Adam is not a status of Christ. The Second Adam is one of Christ's many titles.

Others of Christ's many titles are: Lamb, Sun of Righteousness and Morning Star. These do not imply that Christ is a wooly, baby sheep, a really righteous sun, or actually is Venus, Sirius or Mercury, which often show up in the morning. They are titles, not descriptions.

I affirm that scripture clearly states that: "Adam is the figure of him that was to come." Namely Christ. Rom.5:14.

This I most solemnly affirm.

I affirm that scripture clearly states that: "in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor.15:22.

This I most solemnly affirm.

I affirm that scripture clearly states that: "it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1 Cor.15:45.

This also I most solemnly affirm.

The incarnation of The Son of Man Mk.14:21, as a human being was entirely the work of God and not man. God has not seen fit to reveal to us God's exact reasons for Christ being born a man. We may speculate why, and scripture, through the book of Isaiah, predicted exactly that fact Isa.9:6. Had Christ not been a man, the scripture would not have been fulfilled, that much is clear. Most else is presumption.

I can however state my opinion that God's choice of becoming a male human being, had nothing whatever to do with gender preferences of the culture. God is not a respecter of persons. Rom.2:11.

It is just as well however that Jesus Christ was a man, otherwise it is highly unlikely, given the subjugated position of women in Jewish society in his time, the work of redemption could have been completed successfully. As it was, it was accomplished. Jn.19:30.


STRONG’S NUMBER: g5055
Dictionary Definition g5055. τελέω teleō; from 5056; to end, i.e. complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a debt): — accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay, perform. AV (26) - finish 8, fulfil 7, accomplish 4, pay 2, perform 1, expire 1, misc 3;
to bring to a close, to finish, to endpassed, finished, to perform, execute, complete, fulfil, (so that the thing done corresponds to what has been said, the order, command etc.)

 

.

 

Matthew 22:29-33
Jesus answered them, ‘You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.’ And when the crowd heard it, they were astounded at his teaching.

Mark 12:24-27
Jesus said to them, ‘Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.’​

This view of life the hereafter is quite different to those who hold dear the idea of being embraced by a thousand virgins whilst it is not clear as the whether they are to stay that way or not. Gender clearly is important to us a human beings, in we see in it part of who we are and see it as part of our identity. We cannot presume that gender will have the same meaning and purpose in heaven.

Genesis 1:27
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. ​

I take it from Genesis 1 that whilst our gender reflect the divine, that is not our gender as males reflects the gender of gOD, but rather that as males and females we reflect something of the image of God.

The point that I am making is that there is more than one stream of thought on these matters in Scripture, and that there is an egalitarian thread which refuses to go away, and we are called to listen to it.

Voltaire's remark may well be of note, as it is not a place that any of us would care to be.

“In the beginning God created man in His own image, and man has been trying to repay the favor ever since.”​

 

We are in agreement on this. And presumably God has given certain 'attributes' to women that God has not given to men, as well. That presumably is why we are called to submit to one another and live in peace. God distributes his 'attributes' severally. 1 Cor.12:11.

Except that Isaac was not the first born of Abraham and Jacob was not the firstborn of Isaac. Gen.16:15-16; Gen.17:22-27. Ishmael was Abraham's first born, and did not inherit. Gen.17:18-21. Esau was Isaac's firstborn, but it was Jacob that ended up with the inheritance. Gen.25:23-26. You need to brush up on your Old Testament old chap.

What 'attributes'? And what are you calling "transpositions"?

In saying that 'attributes' are given by perfect God to corrupt man, are you suggesting that man somehow becomes less corrupt as a result of these 'attributes' or remains just as 'corrupt' as before man received them?

I don't think the membership should merely take your word for that. I have not violated the scripture. I have merely stated the equality of male and female "in Christ", stating there is now no distinction between them. True there are gender roles assigned by God, but they are not defined in terms of superiority or inferiority, we are called by scripture "to be subject to one another". 1 Pet.5:5.

You have set up a Classical Straw man argument here, you do realize. (greater than 50% of native whites in England!)? Where did you get your statistics from? I'm sure they were not demographically labeled 'native whites', who uses such a term?

Order is a wonderful thing, so long as it does not become a desire for control or a lust for power. We are called to peace with one another, not to police over one another. 1 Cor.7:15; Col.3:15; Rom.12:5; 1 Cor.4:6. Eph.5:21.