Christianity, Its Gender Roles and Their Morality

[Blue-Lightning]

Hey all,

I have been reading some of the recent posts and have noticed a degree of disagreement in regard to the issue of gender roles and their morality. I think that since this is a specifically Christian forum, we should strive to learn from each other. So let's take the opportunity to learn a little more about gender roles within Christianity, what the Bible has to say about them, and why/why not they are moral/ethical.

First of all, as Christians we must understand that by definition we are followers of Christ and His teachings. If we then are doing so, then we must accept that Jesus Christ was God since this is clearly the teaching of Jesus Christ during His ministry on earth.

So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

Luke 23:3

Thus, if God and Christ are one, then to say that we love Jesus is to say that we love God. The two are completely inseparable. So whatever Jesus taught, this is what God teaches, and whatever God taught, this is what Jesus teaches. It is important that we understand the unity of the two.

In discussing the gender roles of the Bible, it is important that we remember that women and men are equal in value but not equal in regards to their physical and mental aspects. Indeed, not even two individuals within either of the two genders are equal in those two attributes. And so we must understand that while ever single person has the same worth to God, God has given us all gifts and abilities to which we must use. Some of those abilities are gender specific.

I have struggled for some time with the topic of preaching and whether or not women should preach before congregations. While I understand that we have all been called to preach the gospel to the world, I also understand the part of the Bible in which it directs that men be the sole bearers of the bishop (pastor) position and that only men can be deacons within the church. So too do I understand the Bible's position on men being the heads of their families.

Do I view these teachings as sexist? No, of course not! No more than I view the idea of only women giving birth as being sexist. You see, men and women are "wired"differently, both physically and mentally. It is my own personal view that men are wired more toward being leaders, thinking abstractly and even to some degree making difficult decisions. Yet women also have wonderful characteristics. Women are usually better at handling emotions, caring for others, and even memorization. Just look at a school playground and you will see that these gender characteristics are not learned but instead become evident even at an early age. You will see that the girls are usually walking, holding hands and playing "house," "doctor," or "gymnast," while the boys are arguing over whether or not someone was tackled in their rowdy football game.

It makes sense then that since women and men are created differently, that they would be better adapted for certain tasks. Men seem to be better adapted for the role of being a pastor, while women are most often the best people to seek advice from. There are great jobs and needs in churches for both roles, and to say that one gender can't have a certain job while another can isn't sexist, whether it be exclusive to males or females.

Please let me know what everyone thinks,

BL

 

[Ana'riel]

Let me just tell you my story. When I was a baby I used to hate having to be taken care of (according to my parenst, obviously I don't remember that : ) I didn't want to be held, and I used to try and grab the spoon from mom and use it, even though I couldn't. I always wanted to do things myself, and got mad when I was too little. Fast forward to elementary school. Always played with the boys, football, war games, ect. My favorite cartoon was Thundarcats and Ninja Turtles. Pretty much all of school was like that, girls never had anything to say to me and I hung out with mostly boys, and tomboys like me. Even now, I'm more comfortable hanging out with a group of guys. I do have some girly traits, I watched rainbow brite sometimes when I was little, and she-ra. I had 'my little ponies' that I made my Ninja Turtle toys kill. I did like to dress up sometimes. When I was 18 I worked out for a long time and tried to get a job as a construction worker (excercise at work plus doing something worthwhile) When I met Chris he liked me because I wasn't meek and submissive and whatnot, he wanted an equal partner so he didn't have to do it alone. I'm pretty sure God know's how He made me and Chris so He gave us to each other. Chris is actually better at nurturing.
So in conclusion, perhaps most people fit into the roles, but some people haven't since they were teensy, if anybody had been researching my kindergarten class they would've had a little oddball in their research. : I also think God knows his kids, and if He made you different, He still loves you and will take care of you, I'm perfect proof!

 

[Free]

I think that most of the understanding of gender roles as mentioned in the Bible is usually a misunderstanding by taking scripture out of context. I do agree that men and women are made very differently and better suited at different tasks, but I don't believe that we can say who can do what.

In Acts, there are mentioned women prophets and apostles. The women played a huge role in the early church and were much more involved in evangelism than the men. Women also typically outnumbered the men in the churches as they were drawn to the equality of gender that Christ and the apostles taught.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Good Responses

Good responses!

I agree, Anariel, that not all men and women fall into perfect categories of various characteristics. My boss doesn't mind at all to tell everyone that he and his wife have opposite characteristics than the norm sometimes. I also agree with you and your husband being equal partners within your relationship - I think that's wonderful. The only thing that I believe the bible specifically states that should be a man only role is in being the head of a church, the bishop/pastor. In my opinion, all else is open to women.

And Free, I would agree with you on most of your post. However, I do think that women should by all means speak in church (and sing!), I can understand the misunderstanding caused by the statements of Paul. While I do believe that Paul had a reason other than sexism for telling the women to be silent in church (which he only did to one church), it is difficult to argue that to someone else since it must be accepted much on conjecture.

But I would like to point out something to you, Free. Having come from an atheistic board where I was most often the only Christian voice, I have come to be very discerning between facts and unsubstantiated beliefs. I wonder why you believe that women were more involved in evangelism than men and outnumbered men in the early church? I have never seen any document from that era which stated that, and I certainly don't give any credance to a modern document which has no proof.

Overall, great responses once again, and I do appreciate the courtesy shown. I am not accustomed to being on the receiving end of courtesy since I was on the truthtree boards.

BL

 

[Ana'riel]

Lets ponder something for a minute though. When Paul wrote that, men weren't even allowed to talk to women(unless it was your wife or a family member) Not just in the Jewish areas, everywhere. That's just the way women were treated. Is it possible that Paul was just trying to keep men in positions of power in the church because that's what was accepted, so people would accept Christ back then? After all, Jesus never said anything about gender roles, and in fact acted like he was trying to bridge the gap. But it would make sense that the idea of equality wouldn't be accepted.
How many more women do you think a woman preacher could bring to Christ these days? I think if the church were to accept women bishops and pastors, there would be a surprising amount of new female Christians. Would you disagree with that?
Also, a lot of people argue that boys and girls are different from childhood, which is probably true for the most part. The funny thing is, females form their communication skills faster and better than males (has to do with girls talking to dolls and playing house, while boys play with trucks and playing make believe fighting games) according to that theory, so really there should have been women communicating with the congregation, right? Just some thoughts :

 

[Blue-Lightning]

More on Genders

When Paul wrote that, men weren't even allowed to talk to women(unless it was your wife or a family member) Not just in the Jewish areas, everywhere. That's just the way women were treated.

No, I find no historical evidence of men not being allowed to talk to unrelated women. If you would like to present proof of a omnicultural culture which shunned unrelated men and women from talking to each other.

Is it possible that Paul was just trying to keep men in positions of power in the church because that's what was accepted, so people would accept Christ back then? After all, Jesus never said anything about gender roles, and in fact acted like he was trying to bridge the gap. But it would make sense that the idea of equality wouldn't be accepted.

If that is true, then Paul was appeasing a culture by supporting a flaw (sin) within that society. If that were true, then Paul is not speaking through the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit is incapable of sin. And if that were true, then the Pauline writings are not scripture, but instead historical documents about the early church.

And yes, Jesus did seem to bridge the gap in gender equality quite a bit. And rightfully so considering the culture that Jewish women were living in. Jesus treated women with the same manner that he treated men. But I do not see any place in the Bible where Jesus struck down gender roles such as only men being priests in the temple (although I am not equalizing that to bishop/pastorship).

How many more women do you think a woman preacher could bring to Christ these days? I think if the church were to accept women bishops and pastors, there would be a surprising amount of new female Christians. Would you disagree with that?

Well, I don't know the number of people that would go to church because of women bishops/pastors, but I do know the number of new Christians that would result from it... zero. Why? Because a person's salvation is not dependant on any other person, but solely on theirself and the Lord. I also think you may need to review the differences in a pastor and a preacher.

And as far as communication skills go... remember what God said to Moses about his speaking skills?

BL

 

[Ana'riel]

No, I find no historical evidence of men not being allowed to talk to unrelated women. If you would like to present proof of a omnicultural culture which shunned unrelated men and women from talking to each other.

It was somewhere defending Christianity, I'll have to find it again. Supposedly Rome was like that at the time of early Christianity. But if that's not true, does that mean Christianity brought sexism?

And yes, Jesus did seem to bridge the gap in gender equality quite a bit. And rightfully so considering the culture that Jewish women were living in. Jesus treated women with the same manner that he treated men. But I do not see any place in the Bible where Jesus struck down gender roles such as only men being priests in the temple (although I am not equalizing that to bishop/pastorship).

I never said he struck it down. Just that he didn't say anything about gender roles, like it was unimportant or something :

Well, I don't know the number of people that would go to church because of women bishops/pastors, but I do know the number of new Christians that would result from it... zero.

I know a lot of woman who won't even consider Christianity because of the implied sexism. Getting people into a church is the first step, right?

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Sexism

It was somewhere defending Christianity, I'll have to find it again. Supposedly Rome was like that at the time of early Christianity. But if that's not true, does that mean Christianity brought sexism?

Of course not. Sexism has existed separate of Christianity as long as history has existed. Look down the list of cultures and see how many gave women any rights. Does that mean it is to be condoned? No, those cultures were acting out of a sinful nature. And while Christianity became the overpowering religion during the middle ages in Europe, it is important to understand that it was a very corrupted form of Christianity. There has always been and always will be very few who truly accept Christianity - that is to do what is right.

I never said he struck it down. Just that he didn't say anything about gender roles, like it was unimportant or something.

Jesus never spoke of pedophilia either, but I would say that it is an important evil to abstain from.

I know a lot of woman who won't even consider Christianity because of the implied sexism. Getting people into a church is the first step, right?

Not at the cost of following the truth.

Later,

BL

 

[Ana'riel]

Jesus never spoke of pedophilia either, but I would say that it is an important evil to abstain from.

I hope you aren't comparing the two : Raping children and gender roles are two very different things.

Look down the list of cultures and see how many gave women any rights.

well thats what I was saying basically, without any rights how would a woman get any position of power, in the church or anywhere. And if they didn't want to give them rights, they wouldn't have accepted a religion that put women in power, right?

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Paul Renig?

First off, I am certainly not comparing pedophilia to gender roles. Only showing you that Jesus didn't speak on many important subjects (at least not recorded).

well thats what I was saying basically, without any rights how would a woman get any position of power, in the church or anywhere. And if they didn't want to give them rights, they wouldn't have accepted a religion that put women in power, right?

She wouldn't. But I don't think that is what is behind the male leadership position within the church. Why would Paul teach "radical" ideas to the Corinthians like loving their "property" and then renig when it came to positions within the church?

Paul wouldn't have cared if people accepted the gospel or not, he would still tell the absolute truth. There are many examples of this in his writings and I fail to see why that would have ended with the subject of gender roles within the church.

BL

 

[Ana'riel]

First off, I am certainly not comparing pedophilia to gender roles. Only showing you that Jesus didn't speak on many important subjects (at least not recorded)

Allrighty : I didn't think you were, but you never know!

Why would Paul teach "radical" ideas to the Corinthians like loving their "property" and then renig when it came to positions within the church?

Why wouldn't God want girls to be pastors of his churches? It's almost as though women have to go through men to be saved, after all man is the glory of God, while woman is the glory of man. I'm not trying to offend you, these discussions often start to hurt my heart. It's almost as though God doesn't even want to have to deal with women, so he passed them off on His better creation. Is that a ridiculous thought? And if so, why is it ridiculous?

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Explanation in Depth

Well please don't let it hurt your heart! Let me explain my take on this subject a little better:

First, I think God loves men and women the very same amount and that He loves all of humanity equally. I also think (and know) that salvation is only received through this loving God, not through men, women, or any object. Salvation is solely through God.

That being said, a woman most certainly does not have to go through a man to be saved. Neither is a woman the glory of a man any more than a man is the glory of a woman. God created both, and seeing and knowing all things present, past and future, He had a plan to create both male and female. Then why did He create Adam first? To show the man that he couldn't make it without a woman. The very beginning of the bible is a lesson about the necessity that men and women have for each other.

But God has made men and women uniquely, with separate physical and mental attributes. And so God has also attributed to the male, the sole responsibility of leading single churches as a pastor/bishop and as deacons of the church. Yet women should not be disheartened that they too were not called, for it is the woman's sole responsibility of having a child. And what greater bond, what greater gift is there than being a mother, other than the very gift of God which is salvation?

Does this mean that men must have a greater spiritual connection with God than do women? No, it is only a role within a church which encompasses many things. But there are so many different roles within a church, so many different parts which need to be filled by both men and women. So should I be disheartened that I have not been called by God to pastor a church even though I do not know the answer as to why? No, I will readily accept whatever position God gives me.

And no, I do not think that anything you have written has been ridiculous. All you have said have been legitimate beliefs and feelings that you have had. But hopefully, through our conversations, both you and I will more easily see the truth.

BL

 

[Ana'riel]

I appreciate you understanding what I was trying to say. I'll write a nice response later, but for now, the office is closed so I must go home :

 

[Ana'riel]

Neither is a woman the glory of a man any more than a man is the glory of a woman.

It does say that verbatim in the Bible though Sweetie : Of course I know everybody can go through Jesus only to be saved, I'm just saying it seems that way sometimes, ya know?

Then why did He create Adam first? To show the man that he couldn't make it without a woman. The very beginning of the bible is a lesson about the necessity that men and women have for each other.

Nobody ever said it that way before

But God has made men and women uniquely, with separate physical and mental attributes.

OK, but he also made some of us very ambiguous from birth almost. I even have a little extra testosterone than normal, which obviously isn't society's influence : Really, the whole pastor thing isn't a big issue for me, I don't feel the calling, sometimes it just doesn't seem fair not to have a choice. After all, what man is jealous that we have to go through labor and give up our lives, personalities and bodies for eighteen (at least) years? : :

PS-this is a surprisingly civil conversation for the topic at hand. Maybe because you actually agree with me on the important issue : Anyway, thanks

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Parnership

For starters, I didn't say that the Bible does not state that a woman is the glory of a man. What I did say is that the converse is also true - a man is the glory of a woman. Both a husband and a wife should be glorious to one another within the marrital relationship.

Really, the whole pastor thing isn't a big issue for me, I don't feel the calling, sometimes it just doesn't seem fair not to have a choice.

But this is the thing, it's not about choice. The worst thing a person can do is to choose to be a pastor or a deacon or really, any position within the church. Because if it is up to man to lead the church, then what power is there in it? It is like the blind leading the blind. But thank God, He leads the church. As a result, we should seek God's will for our lives.

I heard a pastor once say that he didn't choose to be a pastor, God just gave him no other choice. He tried to run from the role, he didn't want to be a pastor: but God put it in his heart, on his mind, and in his dreams. And the man finally gave up and accepted God's calling when God showed him and his wife a bright light one night as they were talking about his feelings of being a pastor.

Honest truth - I don't believe that man would lie. Especially not when he was just explaining to me how someone knows they have been called (and it doesn't necessarily mean you see something like a great light with your spouse).

Now I don't believe that a woman has ever been called to be a pastor or a deacon. On the same note, I believe a lot of men and women believe themselves to be called into a role which they were never called, but have assumed that calling based on their inner feelings. And without God, what power is there in any role?

After all, what man is jealous that we have to go through labor and give up our lives, personalities and bodies for eighteen (at least) years?

Whoa, wait up just a minute. First, I think you're off to a certain degree about giving up your lives, personalitites and bodies for eighteen years (although certainly not labor). Certainly your life takes on a new and wonderful facet, your personality will effect your child, and you have the responsibilities of raising a child, but you do not give up those parts of life. And whatever amount of work and dedication you put into raising a child should be matched 100% by your spouse, whether your spouse be your husband or wife. It is a partnership in marriage and family, and both the husband and wife are to be equal partners in raising children.

After all, what man is jealous that we have to go through labor and give up our lives, personalities and bodies for eighteen (at least) years?

You show me a time when Christ was uncivil and I'll neglect that responsibility.

And thank you too.

BL

 

[Free]

BL,

However, I do think that women should by all means speak in church (and sing!), I can understand the misunderstanding caused by the statements of Paul.

You may have misunderstood me, as I have nothing at all against women speaking in church.

I wonder why you believe that women were more involved in evangelism than men and outnumbered men in the early church? I have never seen any document from that era which stated that, and I certainly don't give any credance to a modern document which has no proof.

I would recommend a very good book, "Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization" by Alvin J. Schmidt. He covers this topic and many others quite extensively. The author spent a number of years reasearching the impact Christianity has had over the centuries and cites even some secular sources to show that women were a majority in the early church.

So what about churches that do have women pastors?

 

[Ana'riel]

For starters, I didn't say that the Bible does not state that a woman is the glory of a man. What I did say is that the converse is also true - a man is the glory of a woman.

Some would say you are being to liberal even with just that statement. :robot:

Whoa, wait up just a minute. First, I think you're off to a certain degree about giving up your lives, personalitites and bodies for eighteen years (although certainly not labor). Certainly your life takes on a new and wonderful facet, your personality will effect your child, and you have the responsibilities of raising a child, but you do not give up those parts of life. And whatever amount of work and dedication you put into raising a child should be matched 100% by your spouse, whether your spouse be your husband or wife.

I guess my feelings on that have more to do with the fact that the only examples I see are women who do everything with the house and kids, while the husband 'relaxes' after work. I mean I'm talking the wife is making dinner and keeping the kids from destroying something while the husband is playing video games or something. But I guess I should know Chris better than that. (He's better with kids than me )

You show me a time when Christ was uncivil and I'll neglect that responsibility.

Only with corrupt fundimentalists or money changers :

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Reaching up to grab Free's post:

I would recommend a very good book, "Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization" by Alvin J. Schmidt. He covers this topic and many others quite extensively. The author spent a number of years reasearching the impact Christianity has had over the centuries and cites even some secular sources to show that women were a majority in the early church.

At the present time I an unable to spend that much time. Hey, but if you could tell me what his sources were for making that conclusion, I would be greatly pleased.

Also, remember that aside from that, we are discussing pastors/bishops and deacons, not majorities. I suspect actually that women have been a majority for much of Christianity. I do not suspect that women in the early church held very many leadership positions.

So what about churches that do have women pastors?

In a very few cases, I see no problem (I have heard of churches where no men attend). And not trying to be abrasive, but in other situations, I believe the church and the pastor are mislead.

BL

 

[Free]

BL,

I forgot about this thread, my apologies. I will try and get you some references this weekend.

 

[Free]

BL,

Paul refers to Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2 by the male title of diakonos (deacon), not "deaconess" or "servant" which most translations have (deaconess wasn't in existence until the latter part of the fourth century). Paul also refers to her as prostatis, or "leading officer."

Origen (A.D. 185-254) saw Phoebe as having Apostolic authority (Commentarium in Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos 10.1278 ).

In Phil. 4:2-3, Paul calls two women, Euodia and Syntyche, "fellow workers" along with Clement, and Aquila and Priscilla in Romans 16:3. Apphia was a leader of a house church in Colossae (Philemon 2). In Laodicea Nympha had a church in her house (Colossians 4:15).

St. Chrysostom stated that "the women of those days [early apostolic church] were more spirited than men."

W. E. H. Lecky gives credit to women for the conversion of the Roman empire and that, "In the ages of persecution female figures occupy many of the foremost places and ranks of matyrdom." (History of European Morals from Augustine to Charlemagne, pg 385)

Leopold Zscharnack says, "Christendom dare not forget that it was primarily the female sex that for the greater part brought about its rapid growth. It was the evangelistic zeal of women in the early years of the church, and later, which won the weak and the mighty." (Der Dienst der Frau in den ersten Jahnhundersten der christliche Kirche, pg 19)

That is most of what I could get regarding outside sources listed in Under the Influence by Alvin J Schmidt. Not a lot, but it does show the early church allowed women to be in leadership.